Messianic Torah Helper

© 2013 TNN Press

edited by Margaret McKee Huey, with J.K. McKee

first edition © 2004

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the author(s).

Cover photos: Istockphoto

Published by TNN Press, a division of Outreach Israel Ministries

908 Audelia Rd. Suite 200-228

Richardson, Texas 75081

(407) 933-2002

www.tnnonline.net/tnnpress

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard, Updated Edition (NASU), © 1995, The Lockman Foundation.

“The Message of…” chapters employ primary Scripture quotations from the New International Version (NIV), © 1984, published by International Bible Society.

Table of Contents

Introduction

PART I

APPROACHING THE TORAH

1 The Importance of Studying the Torah

by Mark Huey

2 Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues

Messianics Encounter in the Torah

by J.K. McKee

3 A Messianic Evolution?

by Mark Huey

PART II

THE REVELATION OF MOSES' TEACHING

4 Torah As Constitution

by J.K. McKee

5 Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4:

"The Torah Will Go Forth From Zion"

by J.K. McKee

6 Is Messiah the Termination of the Torah?

by J.K. McKee

7 What Does "Under the Law" Really Mean?

by J.K. McKee

8 The Message of Galatians

by J.K. McKee

9 The Message of Romans

by J.K. McKee

10 The Message of Hebrews

by J.K. McKee

11 The Message of James

by J.K. McKee

PART III

THE APPLICATION OF THE TORAH AND HALACHAH

12 One Law for All

by J.K. McKee

13 The Significance of the Messiah Event

by Margaret McKee Huey and J.K. McKee

14 You Want to be a Pharisee

by J.K. McKee

15 Is the Hebrew Matthew an Authentic Document?

by J.K. McKee

16 Matthew 23:2-3: Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?

by J.K. McKee

PART IV

TORAH AND THE CONTEMPORARY MESSIANIC MOVEMENT

17 Is God's Plan Bigger?

by J.K. McKee

18 A Low Hamartology

by J.K. McKee

19 Considering Messianic Jewish Fears of Replacement and Irrelevance

by J.K. McKee

20 Waging War: Fight the Good Fight

by Mark Huey

21 Torah and the Holy Spirit

by Mark Huey

22 Our Heavenly Father's Heart: The Messianic Restoration

by Mark Huey

FAQs on the Torah and Associated Subjects

FAQs related to The Importance of Studying the Torah

FAQs related to Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah

FAQs related to A Messianic Evolution?

FAQs related to The Message of Romans and The Message of Galatians

FAQs related to One Law for All

FAQs related to The Significance of the Messiah Event

FAQs related to Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?

FAQs related to Is God's Purpose Bigger? and Considering Messianic Jewish Fears of Replacement and Irrelevance

About the Editor

An Important Word From the Publisher:

TNN Press is pleased to offer you this eBook version of the Messianic Torah Helper. Please be aware that there are some formatting differences between this electronic edition for Amazon Kindle, and the printed edition. It is highly recommended that if you are interested in perusing this publication for research purposes, that you procure a hard copy available from TNN Press.

Footnotes have also been converted to chapter endnotes. These not only include important references to primary sources, but also will point to other books, commentaries, and articles produced by TNN Press, Outreach Israel Ministries, and TNN Online.

Abbreviation Chart and Special Terms

The following is a chart of abbreviations for reference works and special terms that are used in publications by TNN Press. Please familiarize yourself with them as the text may reference a Bible version, i.e., RSV for the Revised Standard Version, or a source such as TWOT for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, solely by its abbreviation. Detailed listings of these sources are provided in the Bibliography.

Special terms unique to this publication that may be used have been provided in this chart:

ABD: Anchor Bible Dictionary

AMG: Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament, New Testament

ANE: Ancient Near East(ern)

Apostolic Scriptures/Writings: the New Testament

Ara: Aramaic

ATS: ArtScroll Tanach (1996)

b. Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli)

B.C.E.: Before Common Era or B.C.

BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich)

BDB: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BKCNT: Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament

C.E.: Common Era or A.D.

CEV: Contemporary English Version (1995)

CGEDNT: Concise Greek-English Dictionary of New Testament Words (Barclay M. Newman)

CHALOT: Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

CJB: Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

DRA: Douay-Rheims American Edition

DSS: Dead Sea Scrolls

ECB: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible

EDB: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible

eisegesis: “reading meaning into,” or interjecting a preconceived or foreign meaning into a Biblical text

EJ: Encylopaedia Judaica

ESV: English Standard Version (2001)

exegesis: “drawing meaning out of,” or the process of trying to understand what a Biblical text means on its own

EXP: Expositor’s Bible Commentary

Ger: German

GNT: Greek New Testament

Grk: Greek

halachah: Hebrew term for lit. “the way to walk,” meaning how the Torah is lived out and applied within an individual's life and/or the faith community

HALOT: Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Koehler and Baumgartner)

HCSB: Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)

Heb: Hebrew

HNV: Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible

ICC: International Critical Commentary

IDB: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDBSup: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement

ISBE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

IVPBBC: IVP Bible Background Commentary (Old & New Testament)

Jastrow: Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (Marcus Jastrow)

JBK: New Jerusalem Bible-Koren (2000)

JETS: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV: King James Version

Lattimore: The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore (1996)

LITV: Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Jay P. Green (1986)

LS: A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell & Scott)

LXE: Septuagint with Apocrypha by Sir L.C.L. Brenton (1851)

LXX: Septuagint

m. Mishnah

MT: Masoretic Text

NASB: New American Standard Bible (1977)

NASU: New American Standard Update (1995)

NBCR: New Bible Commentary: Revised

NEB: New English Bible (1970)

Nelson: Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words

NETS: New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007)

NIB: New Interpreter’s Bible

NIGTC: New International Greek Testament Commentary

NICNT: New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDB: New International Dictionary of the Bible

NIV: New International Version (1984)

NJB: New Jerusalem Bible-Catholic (1985)

NJPS: Tanakh, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1999)

NKJV: New King James Version (1982)

NRSV: New Revised Standard Version (1989)

NLT: New Living Translation (1996)

NT: New Testament

NTVT: The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee (2012)

orthopraxy: lit. “the right action,” how the Bible or one's theology is lived out in the world

OT: Old Testament

PreachC: The Preacher’s Commentary

REB: Revised English Bible (1989)

RSV: Revised Standard Version (1952)

t. Tosefta

Tanach (Tanakh): the Old Testament

Thayer: Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TEV: Today’s English Version (1976)

TLV: Tree of Life Messianic Family Bible—New Covenant (2011)

TNIV: Today’s New International Version (2005)

TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

UBSHNT: United Bible Societies’ 1991 Hebrew New Testament revised edition

v(s). verse(s)

Vine: Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

Vul: Latin Vulgate

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

Yid: Yiddish

YLT: Young’s Literal Translation (1862/1898)

Introduction

The Messianic Torah Helper is one of numerous publications by TNN Press which has originated entirely out of circumstance. In the Winter of 2010 and Spring of 2011, when the 430-page paperback edition of The New Testament Validates Torah was being prepared by J.K. McKee, it was obvious to him that many of the things which he wanted to see addressed in that book, simply could not be, because of space limitations. Rather than cast away the various appendices from the previous, 2008 spiral comb edition of NTVT, it seemed more appropriate that they should be transplanted into a different, or even new book. As files began being shuffled around, and we began to consider various ideas, it became obvious that this new book needed to be a unique volume within our Messianic Helper series.

Up until the present time in 2013, the three previous releases within our Messianic Helper series have pertained to the Spring, Fall, and Winter holiday seasons. They concern how Jewish and non-Jewish Believers can be blessed and enriched in their Messianic faith, as they celebrate and honor Yeshua in the appointed times. Two volumes which have been planned for an extensive paperback release, and will hopefully be completed sometime in 2014, will address the issues of the seventh-day Sabbath and kosher eating for Messianic Believers. All of these different areas of Torah observance involve daily, weekly, and seasonal practices, various traditions and customs—as well as associated questions and debates. The Messianic Torah Helper, however, includes an array of far more than just important articles transplanted from the 2008 edition of NTVT.

When surveying not only the broad Messianic community, but also the theological heritage that the Messianic movement has inherited from both the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church—it should be most obvious that the subject of the Torah or the Law of Moses, is rather big. If you are a person who has been a part of the Messianic movement for some period of time, or you are just now being exposed to it, the following list of questions, among others, are some which you have doubtlessly encountered:

•      What is the best way to be familiar with the accounts and regulations of the Torah?

•      Should the Torah ever be referred to as “the Law”?

•      How should God’s people approach the issues contained in the Pentateuch? Are some commandments truly conditioned by an ancient context and setting, and are other commandments more universal to all times and settings?

•      While the Torah is an undeniable part of the ethnic and cultural heritage of the Jewish people, what is the relationship of people from the nations to Moses’ Teaching?

•      What about texts of the New Testament like Galatians, Romans, or Hebrews, and what they say about the Law?

•      Can people actually be saved through their Torah observance?

•      Does the sacrifice of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah change anything, in terms of the relationship that God’s people have toward the Law?

•      What about the role of Jewish tradition and halachah for today’s Messianics?

•      What about the role of the Holy Spirit in obeying God’s Instruction?

•      What is the purpose of the contemporary Messianic movement, the salvation of the Jewish people, and why are so many non-Jewish Believers turning to the Torah?

•      What about the distinct needs of Messianic Jews?

These are just a selection of the questions which are probed by the Messianic Torah Helper. Obviously, a single book cannot address the many issues and sub-issues which involve how today’s Messianic people, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, should orient themselves to the varied areas which involve God’s Torah. But, the Messianic Torah Helper composes a wide compilation of articles and analyses, which need to be read by many of today’s Messianic people—especially those who have been subjected to a few unnecessary theological and spiritual extremes, and now need to be balanced out, acquiring some more information.

The difference between the preceding New Testament Validates Torah book, and this publication, is that NTVT largely addressed the general validity and relevance of the Torah or Law of Moses for God’s people today, answering a great many arguments given by contemporary Christians. The Messianic Torah Helper addresses a number of significant, associated topics, as people within the broad—and still developing or emerging—Messianic movement, consider Moses’ Teaching and apply it to their individual and congregational lives. The questions and issues this book analyzes—within the orbit of “Torah”—are those which many, many Messianic people encounter in their different fellowships and assemblies, either from teachings from the leadership (both positive and negative) or from individuals with whom they interact at gathering times. These same questions and issues have also been posed by many others within the Messianic movement, especially including those who make an avid use of online social media.

It should be obvious to each of us in the Twenty-First Century, that today’s Messiah followers are not the original people to whom the Torah was first given at Mount Sinai in the Thirteenth Century B.C.E. And, we are not exactly like the First Century C.E. ekklēsia, composed of Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the Mediterranean basin, either. As such, to properly appreciate the different articles and analyses that compose the Messianic Torah Helper, it needs to be stressed that each of us needs to consciously be aware of the context of the Torah or Pentateuch as given to its original recipients in Ancient Israel, how the Torah was approached by Yeshua and His Apostles—but most especially consider various post-resurrection realities, specially inaugurated via the work of Israel’s Messiah—and then couple them with what is happening in our time with the Messianic movement.

Whether you are aware of it or not, today’s Messianic community has already entered into a very decisive stage of its theological and spiritual development. We have already seen positive strides made in seeing a generation of Jewish people come to faith in Messiah Yeshua, and in seeing a wide number of evangelical Christians embrace their Hebraic Roots in a very tangible way. It is now time to move forward, and it is our hope that this unique publication with the scope of subjects it addresses and the information it has compiled, will be able to assist in this endeavor.

In the early 2010s, those of us who serve in full time Messianic ministry—especially in some sort of educational capacity—have discerned some noticeable factors regarding our developing theology. The Messianic community has already entered into that realm of examining the Bible as history, as law, as philosophy, and as psychology—but far too many people at large do not even realize it, nor would they have an adequate orientation of what to do with it per some significant issues on the horizon. Considering the experiences of the Ancient Israelites, in the Ancient Near East, does not often appear on the radar of your average Messianic person.[a] Considering those experiences and factoring in the thoughts and teachings of the additional revelation of the Prophets, Writings, and Apostolic Scriptures, does not occur to as many as it should.

The three main contributors to the Messianic Torah Helper are the main writers and researchers for Outreach Israel and TNN Online: Mark Huey, Margaret Huey, and John McKee. There is certainly overlap among some of the chapters. There are also some critical, but we would hope constructive, remarks made in this publication, toward some of the thoughts, ideas, and ideologies seen in the present Messianic community. As you read the Messianic Torah Helper, the articles and analyses and FAQ entries which compose it, be aware of one thing: there are additional TNN Press publications which go into much more further detail, and others which are currently in various stages of completion. We certainly look forward to some of the possible, future publications, articles, and FAQ entries, which may emerge as we interact with readers of the Messianic Torah Helper, and see various reviews written on Amazon.com and other public forums.

While the teachers of Outreach Israel Ministries are all from evangelical Christian backgrounds, rather than be like some in the widely independent Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement, who tend to exhibit a great deal of disrespect toward Christianity—we intend to instead be fair and respectful of those Believers who have preceded us in faith, especially as we come from spiritual backgrounds in Calvinism and Wesleyanism which have always believed that the so-called “moral law” of the Torah, and especially the Ten Commandments, has remained valid and godly instruction for Messiah followers.[b] We intend to take the virtues of our evangelical Christian heritage, and see them properly complimented and merged with the edifying faith heritage that we have inherited via the Jewish Synagogue and Jewish people—so that both Jewish and non-Jewish Messianic Believers can employ all of their gifts, talents, and skills for God’s service.

We fully affirm those great words of the Psalmist, who decreed, “How happy are those whose way of life is blameless, who live by the Torah of ADONAI!” (Psalm 119:1, CJB). At the same time, we recognize that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit, upon a redeemed heart and mind, that the Torah can be truly fulfilled (Romans 8:1-4). So as you prepare to read through the various perspectives present and issues considered in the Messianic Torah Helper, let us “put away all moral filth and excess of evil and receive with humility the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21, TLV). For, as important as the Torah is, so much more important is the One to whom the Torah points (Romans 10:4, Grk.)[c]: Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). May we eagerly be about accomplishing the Messiah’s tasks in the Earth today, as we enter into the final stages of salvation history!

Margaret McKee Huey

with J.K. McKee

ENDNOTES FOR Introduction

[a] Some highly useful thoughts are offered by John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).

[b] Among some contemporary Christian examiners, our evangelical background being highly respectful of the presumed “moral law” of the Torah, might be best represented by Walter C. Kaiser, “The Law as God’s Guidance for the Promotion of Holiness,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp 177-199.

[c] “For Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God” (Romans 10:4, Common English Bible).

-1-

The Importance of Studying the Torah 2003

Mark Huey

Perhaps the most life-changing trend present today in the Messianic movement is the return of many Believers to the foundations of our faith.[1] This is best exemplified by many individuals studying the Torah. In our examination of the Hebraic Roots of the faith, “the Torah” refers to the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, also commonly called the Law of Moses.

The return to the Hebraic Roots, or Ancient Paths of our faith, is taking place in direct fulfillment of some major end-time prophecies. The Prophet Malachi admonishes us, “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel” (Malachi 4:4). Moses himself prophesies in Deuteronomy 30:1-2, “So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons.” In the Last Days, God’s people are going to return to following the totality of His Instruction.

This restoration will be evident because the end-time saints are known by two critical characteristics: (1) they will have the testimony of knowing Yeshua the Messiah as their Lord and Savior, and (2) they will obey God’s commandments (Revelation 12:17; 14:12). Our Heavenly Father is preparing a people who will have certain attributes present prior to the return of His Son. We believe that the study of the Torah is a crucial part of this preparation process. This importance should not be overlooked, because for the first time since that of the Apostles, we are witnessing that a significant number of non-Jewish Believers, as opposed to just Jewish Believers, are learning the basics of Torah observance and practicing them.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has a plan for His Creation and a plan for the people He has chosen to represent Himself among the nations. According to the Scriptures, Israel has been called to be a “kingdom of priests” and “a holy nation.” The Lord says in Exodus 19:5-6, “‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.” This concept is not something new for us as Believers in Yeshua. It is reemphasized by the Apostle Peter, who writes, “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, a royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).[2] Of course, the challenge for many Believers over the centuries since these words were written is how they are to be practiced in the world.

The challenging if/then proposition by the Most High in the Book of Exodus is given after the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt. Moses makes a definitive statement about how Israel will become God’s beloved treasure of all peoples. But did you also notice that there was a requirement placed upon the people of Israel in order to achieve the status as a people for His own possession? They were to obey His voice and keep His covenant that He has made with them. There was a responsibility placed upon Israel in order to achieve its chosen position among the nations. In the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses gives Israel additional instruction on how to achieve the goals of listening to and obeying the Lord:

“See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it. So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today? Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons. Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, ‘Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children’” (Deuteronomy 4:5-10).

In order to achieve and maintain their position as the chosen nation of priests, Moses tells the Israelites that they are to “Observe them faithfully” (v. 6, NJPS), meaning that they are to “carefully” (NIV) observe the commandments that God gave them. Likewise, they are to “Teach them to your children and to their children after them,” and in turn their children “may teach them to their children” (vs. 9, 10, NIV). The instructions given by God to His people were to be taught to the generations after, and they were also to be “your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes” (v. 6). By following God’s commandments, Ancient Israel would be blessed by Him, and hence their neighbors would see their being blessed and be in awe of them. As the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament notes on Deuteronomy 4:1, 6,

“The Israelites were to hearken to the laws and rights which Moses taught to do (that they were to do), that they might live and attain to the possession of the land which the Lord would give them. ‘Hearkening’ involves laying to heart and observing….Keeping and doing them were to be the wisdom and understanding of Israel in the eyes of the nations….History has confirmed this. Not only did the wisdom of a Solomon astonish the queen of Sheba (1Ki 10:4.), but the divine truth which Israel possessed in the law of Moses attracted all the more earnest minds of the heathen world to seek the satisfaction of the inmost necessities of their heart and the salvation of their souls in Israel's knowledge of God.”[3]

Of course, as human nature demands, it takes a substantial effort to maintain a remembrance of the Torah. Unfortunately as we know from Biblical history, the Ancient Israelites did not always follow what they committed to do at the base of Mount Sinai. In spite of periods of faithful obedience to God, there were also periods of significant disobedience. Even upon entering the Promised Land there was a time when “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). Even though God gave Israel powerful kings like David and Solomon, who followed and obeyed Him the best they could, there was still difficulty. For almost a thousand years after entering the Promised Land, random attention was often paid to the Torah.

During the reign of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.), a scroll of Deuteronomy was discovered in the Temple complex and a revival of reading the teachings of Moses began (2 Kings 22:1-23:28; 2 Chronicles 34:1-35:27).[4] For the first time in over five-hundred years the Passover was celebrated (2 Kings 22:21-23; 2 Chronicles 35:1-19). An interest in studying the words of Moses began in earnest:

“The king went up to the house of the LORD and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD” (2 Kings 23:2; cf. 2 Chronicles 34:20).

Ironically, this return to the Torah occurred about fifty years before the Southern Kingdom of Judah was taken into the Babylonian Captivity (586-516 B.C.E.). A Psalmist records that the yearning for the things of Zion did not leave the Jews during their captivity:

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. Upon the willows in the midst of it we hung our harps. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and our tormentors mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’ How can we sing the LORD’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her skill” (Psalm 135:1-5).

There is evidence from the testimonies of Ezra and Nehemiah that those who returned to Jerusalem after the exile in Babylon came back with a desire to learn the Torah and obey its commandments:

“For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10).

“And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law” (Nehemiah 8:1-3).

In due time, a system of study was established by the Rabbinical authorities who followed in the footsteps of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the returning Levites. Louis Jacobs remarks in EJ on how the present Torah cycle followed today came about:

“The practice of reading the Pentateuch (Torah) in public is undoubtedly ancient. The sources, however, do not permit the definite tracing of the historical development of the custom. The command to assemble the people at the end of every seven years to read the law ‘in their hearing’ (Deut. 31:10–13) is the earliest reference to a public Torah reading. A second mention is made in the time of Ezra when he read the Torah to all the people, both men and women, from early morning until midday, on the first day of the seventh month (Neh. 8:1–8). These two occasions are isolated instances, and do not help to establish when the custom of regular Torah readings arose…. Moses' command that the Israelites should read the Torah on the Sabbath, on festivals, and on new moons, and Ezra's that it should be read on Mondays, on Thursdays, and on Sabbath afternoons (TJ, Meg. 4:1, 75a; BK 82a) are not historical statements in themselves; they point, however, to an early date for the introduction of regular readings…. The passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 29b) is the earliest reference to a fixed cycle of consecutive readings. It states that ‘in the West’ (Palestine), they completed the reading of the Torah in three years….In Babylon and other communities outside Palestine, an annual cycle was followed according to which the Pentateuch was divided into 54 sedarim (sing. sidrah, i.e., parashah). This became the universal Jewish practice, except for certain isolated instances. In Palestine, the triennial cycle was also superseded by the annual, possibly under the influence of Babylonian immigrants.”[5]

Following the Babylonian exile, Jews who returned developed varying traditions for studying the Torah on a consistent basis. Studying the Torah was considered extremely important by those returning from the Babylonian exile, because disobedience to it caused the Divine punishment. This is reflected in the final admonitions given by the Prophet Malachi, who lived about a century or so after the first exiles returned, who referred to the critical need to follow it:

“Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel” (Malachi 4:4).

By the time of the Apostles, the study of the Torah was commonplace among the Jews, both those living in the Land of Israel and those in the Diaspora. The First Century historian Josephus attests in his book Against Apion that the Jews were permitted “to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected” (2.175).[6] The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived in Alexandria and was contemporary to Yeshua and Paul, says in On Dreams, “And would you still sit down in your synagogues, collecting your ordinary assemblies, and reading your sacred volumes in security, and explaining whatever is not quite clear, and devoting all your time and leisure with long discussions to the philosophy of your ancestors?” (2.127).[7] Interestingly enough, Jacobs remarks that “This contention is supported by evidence in the New Testament,”[8] referencing Acts 15:21 as support for the historical premise that First Century Judaism followed a consistent Torah cycle.[9]

As we know from Biblical history, when Yeshua the Messiah came on the scene not everyone believed that He was the promised Redeemer. He lived in a First Century Jewish culture that was dominated by various sects and factions (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.). When He ascended into Heaven His followers began to spread the message beyond the borders of the Land of Israel and quickly non-Jews dominated the assembly of faith. Jewish opposition to Rome reached its peak with the revolt of 67 C.E., resulting with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E. The Jews living in the Land of Israel, whether Believers in Yeshua or not, were dispersed and scattered. Anti-Semitism arose in massive numbers in the Roman Empire, and the new leaders of the emerging Christian Church, who were non-Jewish and rapidly replacing the dying, original Jewish leaders, often had no foundation in the Torah or First Century Judaism. After several generations, this resulted in interpretations of Scripture that were foreign to the practices of Yeshua and His original Disciples. The Apostle Paul recognized in the middle of the First Century that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). “[T]his separating from Torah” (CJB) was already taking place in his day, and by the time of the establishment of Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman Empire with the conversion of the Emperor Constantine by the Fourth Century, religious customs and traditions permeated the Church that the Apostles would not have known, and likely would not have approved of.

The Church and the Synagogue both went in opposite directions at the end of the First Century. The followers of Judaism who denied that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel devoted much of their energy and attention to further developing the practice of Torah study. By doing this, they maintained some cohesion and have retained their unique identity among the nations. The admonitions of Moses to teach and instruct the future generations were followed with tremendous energy and intellectual curiosity. However, in the Second to Fourth Centuries, a Rabbinical Judaism emerged which formalized the Oral Law in the written codes of the Mishnah and Talmud. These texts were intended to be written explanations of how the commandments of the Torah were to be kept, but Orthodox Judaism today considers them as authoritative as the Tanach (or Old Testament).[10]

The Rabbinical authorities developed a systematic approach where the Torah was divided into 54 portions known as parashot or sidrot, and the annual cycle won out over time over the triennial cycle. Today the cycle begins after the Fall feast of Shemini Atzeret/the Eighth Day Assembly, and follows the Jewish calendar throughout the year. In addition to the Torah portion, a corresponding Haftarah portion taken from the Prophets or Writings has been added. (Messianics usually compliment this with a selection from the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament.) The Torah portions form the basis of Jewish study in synagogues all over the world.

In the past fifty years, many Jewish Believers have pioneered the modern Messianic community. Most congregations and fellowships have followed the patterns of traditional Torah study developed by Judaism. The primary difference is the recognition that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. Non-Jews, wanting to enrich their faith and return to the original practices of Yeshua and the Disciples, are in their debt. Our own family is an excellent example of how non-Jewish Believers have been encouraged by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to return to the Messianic lifestyle of the First Century Apostles.

When we first attended a Messianic Jewish congregation, the disciplined study of the Torah became one of the joys of our weekly routine. For the first time in our pursuit of the Holy One of Israel, we were introduced to the ancient Jewish tradition of considering the writings of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy, in a systematic manner. The foundations of our faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were being analyzed and discussed in ways that gave meaning to the motives and actions of our spiritual ancestors. The integration of complimentary teachings from the Haftarah (Prophets and Writings) and Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) added depth and clarity to the whole counsel of the Bible. We were blessed by the new revelations, as formerly difficult New Testament passages now made more sense and took on greater depth, because of their foundational basis in the Torah and Tanach. We were truly being able to see the whole council of God’s Word.

In the first year of going through the Torah, we realized that the celebration of the appointed times of the Lord in Leviticus 23 were still for us today. We understood that we were a part of the Commonwealth of Israel. With a Torah foundation, we saw that the seventh-day Sabbath and the dietary laws were still followed by the early Believers in Messiah Yeshua. As non-Jewish Believers, we were being convicted that all of these things were for us as well. The Torah itself says, “The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you” (Exodus 12:49; cf. Leviticus 24:22). We could not accept the premise that God had two sets of instructions for His people: one for Jews and the other for non-Jews. He has only one people and only one set of guidelines for them all!

When you become more Messianic you realize that the Torah observant lifestyle is what the Father had planned for all His people from the time He called them out. God will give you more and more revelation, and you will begin to see that He is restoring all things, so that you can be a saint who has the testimony of Yeshua and obeys His commandments. We are witnessing the strong reality in our day that He is returning all of us to the way that He originally intended, as people are examining the totality of His Word and are returning to the Ancient Paths.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 1

[1]

This chapter is reproduced from William Mark Huey and J.K. McKee, Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2009).

[2] Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6; 10:15; Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6; 43:21; Deuteronomy 4:20; 14:2; Hosea 2:23.

[3] C. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, eds. E-Sword 7.6.1: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. MS Windows 9x. Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005.

[4] Consult the article “The Message of Deuteronomy” by J.K. McKee for a further discussion.

[5] Louis Jacobs, “Torah, Reading of,” in EJ.

[6] Flavius Josephus: trans. William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 805.

[7] Philo Judeaus: trans. C.D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 397.

[8] Jacobs, “Torah, reading of,” in EJ.

[9] The Torah cycle, with appropriate dates for the weekly readings, are available online at the Outreach Israel Ministries website (www.outreachisrael.net).

[10] For an overview of the role that such literature plays within the Jewish theological tradition, consult Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (New York and Philadelphia: Meridian Books/Jewish Publication Society, 1959).

-2-

Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah 2008

J.K. McKee

Focusing on God’s instructions in the Torah is an undeniable part of not only the Messianic lifestyle, but also the Messianic experience. Ever since the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon, the public reading of the Torah to instruct God’s people on what was acceptable and unacceptable behavior has been a regular practice (Nehemiah 7:73-8:12). This is something that is also witnessed in the Apostolic Scriptures (Luke 4:16-17; Acts 13:15) and continues in the traditions of today’s Jewish Synagogue. The repetition of hearing Moses’ Teaching is important for men and women of faith, particularly in understanding the fuller meaning of “For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44). The statutes and commandments of the Torah are to make God’s people different from the rest of the world, possessing qualities and wisdom that attract outsiders to Him (Deuteronomy 4:6).

The Messianic community has grown significantly in the past ten years (1999-2008) via the great interest in evangelical Christians embracing their Hebraic Roots. Such people know that their (exclusive) examination of the New Testament Scriptures while in Church has been incomplete without a foundational basis in the Torah and Tanach. While the Holy Spirit has first convicted such individuals about the need to consider the importance of things like the seventh-day Sabbath/Shabbat, the appointed times or moedim, and the kosher dietary laws—things that the Messianic movement considers to be prime elements of Torah observance[1]—Torah observance is obviously much more than these three aspects of one’s faith practice. A great deal of Torah observance includes one’s ethics and morality, and how a person interacts with others demonstrating God’s kindness and love (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28; cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18).

The ruling of the Jerusalem Council was that after the new non-Jewish Believers would “abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:20), that they would understand that “Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). These were four areas of instruction with a significant Torah background,[2] and the need for these former pagans—now having received salvation in Yeshua—to be trained in the essentials of God’s Word could not be more overstated. Most of today’s Christian commentators on the New Testament are clearly aware of the fact that these non-Jewish Believers would have had to have been somewhat familiar with the story of Ancient Israel in the Old Testament for the Apostles’ teachings and epistles to have made any sense.[3] For example, the Apostle Paul appeals to the Exodus in telling the Corinthians, “our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea” (1 Corinthians 1:10).[4]

Many non-Jewish Believers in today’s Messianic community do not need the same kind of instruction in the Torah and Tanach that the first non-Jewish Believers had, who came out of First Century paganism and were often totally ignorant of the God of Israel. Most of these people in the Messianic movement today received a basic understanding of the stories and history of Ancient Israel from Sunday school, even though such basic understanding can certainly be expanded upon and more thoroughly explored. This is being accomplished quite well by Messianics following the Jewish tradition of reading the weekly Torah portion, and reading through the Torah on either an annual or triennial cycle (whichever best fits the local congregation’s needs).

When the Torah is examined in this way, though, and not just surveyed for people, places, and events[5]—it becomes quite clear that Torah observance is much more than just Shabbat, the festivals, and kosher. A great number of ethical and moral issues/commandments become significantly conscious to the Torah reader. Likewise, a person has to encounter a world going not only back some 3,300 years to the time of the Exodus, but multiplied millennia to the Creation of the cosmos itself. The questions and the controversies that the first five books of the Bible present to us, not just as students of God’s Word, but specifically as Messianic Believers—are quite significant. Many people do not know what to do when the social norms of the ancient period are different than those of today, and are often at a loss when reading the Torah. Not infrequently, such issues are just avoided or outright ignored in Messianic Torah study.

Only diligent discipleship and study can adequately address all of the issues that the Torah presents to a person, pertaining to what such issues meant against their ancient context and what they mean for modern people today. It is very good that today’s Messianics have submitted themselves to the instructions of God’s Torah, and people have become familiarized, or even re-familiarized, with its foundational accounts and histories. Yet, as the Messianic movement prepares to enter into a new chapter in both its spiritual and theological development, it is clear that there is much in the Torah that still needs to be explored by us. Ironically enough, these are the areas of the Pentateuch that both Jewish and Christian Bible scholarship have largely resolved to one degree or another. Today’s Messianic community need not find itself (unnecessarily) lagging behind in these areas, as having a better handle on them will help us in both our Biblical Studies and in understanding the mission that the Lord has laid out for us—to be a kingdom of priests and a light that can make a difference in the world (Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 42:6)!

This analysis of frequently avoided issues that Messianics encounter in the Torah by no means can be the “end-all” of our examination of the Torah. But this analysis does intend to provoke some important questions. These questions should be a part of future Messianic discussions and our engagement as a faith community in larger sectors of conversation on the Scriptures. I do intend to ask some questions regarding the Torah of today’s Messianics that, at least on the whole, our movement is largely unprepared to consider (in 2008). These are questions that any reader of the Biblical text will encounter, they are by no means hidden, and they are by no means inappropriate as both the Synagogue and the Church have already had to consider them. So certainly, as a movement that has its spiritual and theological origins in both of these institutions, a critical part of our maturation process is for us to consider them as well.

Your Typical Messianic “Torah Study”

Having been in the Messianic movement since 1995, I am very much aware of the benefits of examining the weekly Torah portion. For a new person entering into the Messianic community, some kind of weekly Torah examination is essential to understanding the heritage of faith that all Believers in Yeshua have inherited. As many have first examined the Torah in this way, their response is not that unlike the Psalmist, who extols “I shall remember the deeds of the LORD; surely I will remember Your wonders of old. I will meditate on all Your work and muse on Your deeds. Your way, O God, is holy; what god is great like our God?” (Psalm 77:11-13). Becoming more cognizant of the wonderful world God has made, the great promises He has made to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His deliverance of Ancient Israel via the Exodus—are certainly all things that constitute His wonders!

But if we are honest with ourselves, even though these things are seen in the history of the Torah, there are many parts of the Torah, which—at least at first—many of us have scratched our heads about. It is one thing, for example, to read about a great event like the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, but what do we do about Biblical commandments relating to the Tabernacle or animal sacrifice? What do we do about the description of an agricultural economy, when we have an industrial economy today? What do we do about those things which seem to place women in a second-class position (in subservience) to men? What do we do about Torah commandments that regulate slavery? What on Earth do we do when God commands that Israel completely wipe out and decimate the population of a town?! The list could go on and on…

Not surprisingly, many Messianic “Torah teachers” do not know what to do, hence making things like these frequently avoided issues. This can often be compounded by a few Messianic teachers, who may pound the pulpit and strongly assert, “You can’t pick and choose which commandments to follow!” and then they are confronted with commandments that they do not know what to do with. Yeshua Himself did absolutely say, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). But what do we do when we encounter a situation in life today where a Torah commandment just does not apply? Are we to consider this “loose[ning]” (YLT) or “relax[ing]” (ESV) of a commandment? Do we become hyper-literal in our reading of the text, and try to “make” or even force a Torah commandment to fit? Or do we try to understand the uniqueness of God’s Law to those who originally received it, and implore the Holy Spirit to see if such a commandment can really be applied or not? What do we do with Yeshua’s declaration that there are indeed “some weightier provisions of the law” (Matthew 23:23) when compared to others?

This is a dilemma that many of today’s Messianic Believers face. Many of today’s Messianic teachers and leaders do not know what to do with Torah issues of controversy. Some fail to understand that there are commandments that are “least” or “greatest” among the Torah mitzvot, as Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chs. 5-7) primarily deals with one’s relationship to the Heavenly Father and the ethics a person displays toward one’s fellow human beings. That does not mean that things like Shabbat, the festivals, or kosher are unimportant or are to be ignored, as Yeshua and His Apostles surely followed them. However, Torah principles that Believers must clearly focus on in their day-to-day lives and never overlook in any capacity regard things like not committing murder (Matthew 5:21-22; cf. Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), having peace with others (Matthew 5:23-26; cf. Proverbs 25:8-10), not committing adultery (Matthew 5:27-31; cf. Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18), etc., etc. These things clearly make up some of the “greatest” of the commandments. They directly concern our attitudes and whether or not we place the same kind of value on other people as God Himself does.

It is unfortunate that in the quest to reclaim a Torah foundation for our faith, that perhaps only addressing the weekly Torah portion has become quite the norm in a noticeable majority of the Messianic community. A negative consequence of this would be that the Prophets, Writings, and Apostolic Scriptures often get ignored in Biblical teaching. What this means is that issues first addressed in the Torah may not get further examined, as the remainder of the Bible may have some additional things to add to the discussion. It is notable that this style of Bible teaching does not have a witness in ancient times, as in Pisidian Antioch the Apostle Paul got up to speak “After the reading of the Law and the Prophets” (Acts 13:15), the latter being a section of the Scriptures that many Messianic congregations today do not examine in any detail. (This is also an indication that such synagogues frequently had sermonic messages independent of the weekly reading in the Torah and Prophets, something that we should also be doing in today’s Messianic congregations.)

A significant reason why many Messianic teachers do not know what to do with some of the other commandments of the Torah, perhaps choosing to just jump over or avoid them when that parashah comes up in the cycle, is that too much of our Torah study is removed from its Ancient Near Eastern setting—forgetting neighboring civilizations such as those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or the Canaanites, and how it affects our view of the text.[6] Not enough are aware that Hebrew can be a vague and imprecise language, leading to multiple interpretations of various Torah commandments. The fact that Biblical Hebrew was an ANE language with a limited vocabulary of around 3,000 words (compared to an English language of almost 150,000 words!), and with cognate languages such as Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic, is not understood by many of today’s Messianic Torah teachers.[7] Placing the Torah into its ancient historical context is often something that many of today’s Messianic Torah teachers do not do, instead preferring to (cut corners and) consult the Orthodox Jewish tradition (i.e., the ArtScroll Chumash) whose exegesis is often devoid of any historical data from the period. And, this is only compounded by the significant number of “packaged” Messianic teachings from the Torah, which some ANE history can refute.[8]

Knowing about these kinds of things is especially poignant to the more independent sectors of the Messianic movement, or Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement, which can often tend to attract a deal of controversy. Many of its well known (traveling) teachers will often make claims about the Torah, without being a part of a conversation in Biblical Studies. It is not as problematic for today’s Messianic Judaism, which is often more open to non-Orthodox Jewish and evangelical Christian scholarship. Still, because of the overwhelming dominance of Orthodox Jewish examination in even much of Messianic Judaism, Ancient Near Eastern history can just as easily be ignored as it is elsewhere in the Messianic community. This will need to change in the future.

Those who do choose to address some of the controversial issues seen in the Torah often find themselves overly relying on the Rabbinic tradition. While the Rabbinic tradition should not at all be excluded from our examinations of various issues, if it is the only thing we consult, we will run into problems. Ironically enough, many others in our ranks who choose to address the controversial issues seen in the Torah, and who do not consider the Rabbinic tradition, will often follow an allegorical style of interpretation most consistent with that of the Third-Fifth Century Christian Church (which they often unfairly repudiate). Certainly while such a style does rightly try to hold all of Scripture in high regard, when one (over-) spiritualizes various passages of the Torah, what the commandment or ordinance meant to its original audience and setting can be significantly lost. Add to this mix those Messianics who desire to emulate an Orthodox Jewish style of Torah halachah, when a more moderate branch of Judaism should be preferred, and you see some of the difficult things that lie in store for our Biblical scholarship and orthopraxy in the near future.

It is absolutely true, that much of what the modern, albeit still emerging, Messianic movement, has had to accomplish, has been to help restore a Torah foundation to God’s people. This especially concerns accounts, commandments, and issues which many Christians in the past have ignored, and are now no longer being ignored. Alas, within this, few take into consideration the fact that Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Jews and Christians, in a relatively modern world, are not at all the original people who received Moses’ Teaching from Mount Sinai. While many Messianic Believers are tuned in enough to realize that the letters of the Apostle Paul, for example, need to be understood first for their ancient audiences, before their principles are applied in a modern setting—the Torah or Pentateuch is not often approached from this perspective. Yet, this is precisely what needs to be factored in to many of the frequently avoided issues facing the Messianic movement today as it concerns the Torah. The word of Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, in their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, should be well taken as we proceed:

“The Israelites were not the first people to live by laws. Several other law codes have survived from ancient nations from times even earlier than the time the Law was given to Israel through Moses (1440 B.C. or later, depending on the date of the exodus from Egypt). When these earlier laws are compared to the Old Testament law, it becomes evident that the Old Testament law represents a definite advancement over its predecessors. One can more fully appreciate the Old Testament law if one recognizes the difference between it and the other ancient laws it improved on. We do not mean by this to suggest that the Old Testament law represents the highest possible standard of moral or ethical teaching. This indeed comes only with the teaching of Jesus himself in the New Testament. But the Old Testament law does show a remarkable degree of progress beyond the standards set prior to it.”[9]

Has the arrival of Yeshua changed anything?

While all Messianics who label themselves as “Torah observant” truly have a high regard for the Torah, too many are afraid to ask the following question: Can all of the Torah really be followed today? This is not the voice of someone looking for loopholes, nor of someone desiring to disobey God. It is the honest question of wanting to know if all the commandments of the Torah can actually be followed in the Twenty-First Century. This question is best answered with another question, which too many are simply afraid to ask when their congregational leader may be caustic or obnoxious when it comes to the Torah: Has the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah and His sacrifice changed anything in regard to the Torah?

Is there a trajectory built into the Scriptures, beginning in the Torah, and continuing through the Prophets and Writings? Yes! The Messianic expectation given by the Prophet Nathan (2 Samuel 7:12-17) was intended to be, as King David testified, a torat ha’adam, a “law (for) humanity” (2 Samuel 7:19, my translation) or “the charter for humanity.”[10] Yeshua Himself said in Luke 22:44, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Paul says in Romans 10:4, “For the goal [telos] at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts” (CJB). There are undeniably Messianic overcurrents and undercurrents seen throughout the Tanach Scriptures that any responsible Biblical interpreter cannot avoid.

The first Messianic prophecy is seen in the Father’s words to Eve, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Genesis 3:15), as salvation was to come “through the child-bearing[11]” (1 Timothy 2:15, YLT). The steady process of salvation history moving forward (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2) is that humanity is to be brought back to a condition similar to that first experienced in Eden (cf. Revelation 21:1-3). The commandments and statutes seen in God’s Torah are the first important steps back to that condition. Along with the blood of Yeshua the Messiah having fully atoned for humanity’s sin[12]—something that the animal sacrifices in the Torah could not do as they had to be offered and re-offered many times (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12)—an equality for all has been restored by His work that had not been seen since Eden (Galatians 3:28).[13]

In the Prophet Jeremiah’s declaration about the New Covenant that God will make with His people, the Lord says “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 33:31), nattati et-Torati beqirbam v’al-l’bam ektavennah. Contrary to popular belief, the New Covenant has nothing to do with replacing the Torah, but is in fact the Torah internalized on the heart—written by the power of God’s Spirit (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is notable though, that the Greek Septuagint rendered Torati, “My Torah” (ATS), with the plural nomous mou or “My laws,” also followed by the author of Hebrews (8:10; 10:16). While the Torah is certainly in view here, this slight difference does beg the question if Yeshua’s work has changed anything. Is “My laws” a reflection on the view that God will steadily write His commandments on the hearts of His people as they mature in faith, or is it also a reflection on the sacrificial system and Levitical priesthood being set aside until the Millennium (Hebrews 7:18; cf. Ezekiel 40-44)?

If the latter is the view that is to be accepted—the temporary setting aside of the Levitical priesthood until the Tribulation period and Millennium—the New Covenant of God’s “laws” being written on the hearts of His people still includes the considerable bulk of the Torah. Old Testament theologian Walter C. Kaiser writes, “Some have argued that it was the Lord’s original intent to replace the old with a new covenant, but if that were true in every respect, then why does the new covenant repeat almost three-fourths of what had been in the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants? Rather than superceding the covenants of promise that had preceded it, it affirmed them as well as supplemented them.”[14] As it regards Messianic Believers today, the “laws” that are written onto the redeemed heart by God certainly concern those things which will enable us to live the life that Yeshua modeled for us (cf. Galatians 6:2).

The arrival of Yeshua has certainly changed some things as they concern animal sacrifice for the atonement of sin, and the transfer of priesthoods from that of Levi to Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:12 details, “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” This nomou metathesis though, is not the widescale abolition of the Torah’s commandments—especially those of ethics and morality—but as David H. Stern rightly emphasizes, it “implies retention of the basic structure of Torah, with some of its elements rearranged (‘transformed’),” particularly of those “not connected with the priesthood and the sacrificial system.”[15] And, even though the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system may be shadows of the reality seen in Yeshua’s sacrifice (Hebrews 8:5; 10:1; cf. Exodus 25:40), they are nonetheless important shadows that mature Believers are to study and understand! The Pentateuchal Scriptures represent the first stage in God’s unfolding plan of salvation history, and cannot be ignored.

The Frequently Avoided Issues

It is sad to say this, but the Jewish Synagogue—which does not acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah—often has a better handle on what commandments in the Torah can and cannot be followed today than the Messianic community does. The very question of halachah, meaning “the way to walk”[16] in the Jewish theological tradition, arose precisely because people found themselves in circumstances and situations to which the Torah did not directly apply. In order to afford the Torah the authority that it has for God’s people, Jewish innovation had to step in and determine which commandments could be followed in the new circumstances and what could actually be done. Most of these new circumstances included living in the Diaspora, and how changes in both technology and economy affect the relevance of various commandments. While God’s ethical and moral standards remained constant, as did His instructions on what were to make Israel a unique people, a good feature of the Rabbinic tradition is its testimony to the fact that not all of the commandments are applicable for today. And that is without recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah who atoned for the world.

The fact that halachah has to be something that adapts to the times is clear even within the Biblical period. The Torah specifically commands that Passover was to be celebrated in the place of the Lord’s choosing (Deuteronomy 16:16), that place being Jerusalem. And indeed, we have adequate Biblical testimony that many people did expel the effort to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, including Yeshua’s own family (Luke 2:41-43). Yet Acts 20:6 indicates that the Apostle Paul commemorated the Passover in Philippi. Would this have been considered a legitimate Passover celebration according to the Torah? If one has a strict black-and-white reading of the text—no. If one sits firmly within the Jewish theological halachah—yes. It was one thing for Yeshua’s family to travel to and from Galilee to Jerusalem to commemorate the Passover. But for Jews living as far east as Persia, or as far west as Belgica in the First Century, it would have just been impossible to go to Jerusalem for all three of the pilgrimage feasts. Accommodations had to be made, and the local synagogue would undoubtedly be a place of gathering for prayer and praise during this time for those who could not make the long journey. Recognizing that God is merciful to His people in those areas where they are unable to perfectly follow His Law was also important.

Understanding an historical reality like this is only a third of the difficulties that today’s Messianics face when it comes to the commandments of the Torah and their applicability. Another third comes in the form of how the Torah’s commandments are specifically classified. The Reformed Christian tradition has often subdivided the Pentateuchal ordinances between moral, civil, and ceremonial, with the latter two no longer being applicable because of Yeshua’s sacrifice.[17] While rightfully believing that the Torah’s moral or ethical statutes can never be revoked and were upheld by Yeshua and the Apostles, this threefold division is rather artificial, as a reading of the Torah itself indicates a much more organic division as commandments applying to males, females, children, priests, farmers, businesspersons, married, unmarried, etc. are to be followed by those sectors of society. Some commandments apply to all, and then other commandments apply to only certain people.

Even when we recognize these much more natural divisions among the Torah mitzvot, there has not been a great deal of Messianic engagement with what scholars often refer to as apodictic or casuistic laws.

Torah commandments that would be considered apodictic are most often those with some kind of “Thou shalt not…” attached to them, indicating that they are immutable principles that cannot, at least easily, be amended or revoked. They concern things that remain constant for the sake of God’s people and in making them as holy and set-apart He has called them out to be. The Ten Commandments are clearly in this category, as are many other ordinances that can easily be followed today with a minimum of difficulties. Other than the ethical and moral ordinances of the Pentateuch, which the historic Christian Church has always held dear, they include many of the things that have constituted Jewish identity over the centuries which many of us believe that the Messianic movement is restoring to the faith.

In contrast to this, casuistic laws or case laws include those things which clearly have some kind of timestamp on them. An excellent example of this is Deuteronomy 23:23, which says “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD,” indicating that the eleventh generation could very well enter into the qahal ADONAI. However, there are other casuistic types of commandments in the Torah that are not as easily classified as such. They have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the interpreter who holds to the continued validity of the Torah has to ask if such commandments only concerned an ancient setting, economy, and technology level—certainly teaching us things about God’s character and Ancient Israel’s uniqueness—or whether they apply to all cultural settings and all generations.

Reasoning through Torah commandments and those that are applicable or non-applicable will be very difficult for varied sectors of today’s Messianic movement. The Apostle Paul wrote Timothy, “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV). Learning how to do this will be a challenge for some of today’s Messianics as we weigh: (1) the impact and changes inaugurated by Yeshua’s atoning sacrifice, (2) the role of halachah in the Jewish theological tradition, and (3) whether a Torah ordinance is apodictic or casuistic. A great deal of the controversy, if not experienced now then certainly to be experienced in the future, regarding Torah observance will not be focused around things like Shabbat, memorializing the appointed times, or kashrut. A great deal of the controversy surrounding Torah observance will regard those things in the Torah that directly concern the Ancient Near Eastern world to which the Moses’ Teaching was originally given to Israel. How we deal with those things in our Twenty-First Century world could very well determine how our faith community rises or falls, at least in the short term.

Of the seven frequently avoided issues that we have chosen to address, about half of them have some kind of direct applicability for the Twenty-First Century, which I have indicated by the designation today. They concern obvious ethical and moral issues that the Messianic movement cannot afford to avoid any longer, and where Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship is far superior. The other part of these issues primarily concern an ancient setting, most often where the Torah’s instruction for Ancient Israel ran into direct contrast or subversion to the law codes of their neighbors, indicated by the designation ancient times. When examining those issues, we see the trajectory of God’s Word at work, as the Pentateuchal legislation often lays the first stepping stones back to the idyllic state first seen in Eden, which are continued in the further revealing of salvation history in the Prophets, Writings, and Apostolic Scriptures. These are issues where there is a great deal of confusion in the Messianic community, which needs to be quickly dispelled.

As you prepare to read through all these issues, you will doubtlessly see things that are avoided at many Messianic Torah studies, and many of your questions concerning them will hopefully be answered. This selection of seven topics is by no means exhaustive, but should give you a good idea about how to approach similar and related things witnessed in the Torah when you encounter that parashah next time in your yearly Torah studies. You should have your senses trained to consider the ancient context of various Biblical commandments, and what they meant when set against that context, indeed indicating whether such things should or can be followed today.

Issue #1: Human Beings Made in the Image of God

today

One of the most significant issues that is avoided by most Messianics today appears in the very first Torah portion, Bereisheet (Genesis 1:1-6:8). Considering the fact that we encounter this issue every single year, and thousands of pages of thoughts, commentary, and theological analysis of this issue are seen in both the Jewish and Christian scholastic traditions—the fact that most Messianics do not deal with it is a sign that (as of 2008) we are not at all where we need to be. The Biblical assertion that human beings are made in the image of God (Lat. imago Dei) is significant not only as it concerns human origins, but also as it concerns the composition and value of the human person. The ramifications of what it means to understand human beings made in God’s image concern not only the uniqueness of the human race in His Creation, but also affect the mission and outlook of the ekklēsia in today’s world as Believers should desire to see other people the way that He sees them.

As the Creation activities of God begin to draw to a close, He says something very important in Genesis 1:26-27, “‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Elohim—actually speaking to Himself—says “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness” (NRSV), b’tzalmenu k’demutenu. The human being possessing these qualities would be able to have dominion over God’s Creation. Being made in God’s image not only concerned the human male, but also the human female.

This assertion of Genesis 1:26-27 would have run completely contrary to Ancient Near Eastern concepts of rulership. Victor P. Hamilton writes, “It is well known that in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian society the king, or some high-ranking official, might be called ‘the image of God.’ Such a designation, however, was not applied to the canal digger or to the mason who worked on a ziggurat…In God’s eyes all of mankind is royal. All of humanity is related to God, not just the king.”[18] Both the male and female were originally created by God and intended to rule over God’s Creation as His viceroy. In the words of Nahum M. Sarna,

“A human being is the pinnacle of Creation. This unique status is communicated in a variety of ways, not least by the simple fact that humankind is last in a manifestly ascending, gradual order. The creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat…Human beings are to enjoy a unique relationship to God, who communicates with them alone and who shares with them the custody and administration of the world.”[19]

In this schema, at least before the Fall, man was intended to be second only to God in Creation—a status which is restored to him to eternity. However, because of the Fall and the introduction of sin, the image of God on man has been marred.

I actually encountered one Messianic teacher who actually took up the subject of human beings made in God’s image.[20] This individual advocated that it was only Adam, the first human being, who was created in God’s image. Because of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, it was said, human beings are no longer made in God’s image. Genesis 5:3 was supplied as a proof text: “When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.” The Hebrew text says v’yoled b’demuto k’tzalemo, “and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and named him Shet [v’yiqra et-shemo Sheit]” (Jerusalem Bible-Koren). According to this, Seth was made after the image and likeness of Adam, as opposed to the image and likeness of God. And this is where the argument stopped.

But the Book of Genesis itself does not stop there. Genesis 9:6 further says, “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” Mortals who are killed by sinful mortals are still considered by God to be made in His image. The difference is, of course, unlike Adam who was originally created without a sin nature, is that every human born since Adam has inherited that sin nature (cf. Romans 5:12). In that context alone are all human beings made “in Adam’s image.” A human being still possesses the unique Divine imprint of his or her Creator.

James, half-brother of Yeshua, says that the tongue can curse other people, all of whom “have been made in the likeness of God” (James 3:9). He uses the Greek word homoiōsis, “a making like” (Vine).[21] This is the same word used in the Greek LXX to translate tzelem in Genesis 1:26, and UBSHNT renders homoiōsin Theou as tzelem Elohim, indeed indicating that human beings—even after the Fall in the Garden of Eden—have been made in “the image of God.” James expects his audience to show due respect for other human beings through what they say, regardless of whether or not they are saved and of the community of faith. John Wesley commented, “Indeed we have now lost this likeness; yet there remains from thence an indelible nobleness, which we ought to reverence both in ourselves and others.”[22] While people are not as perfect as Adam was prior to the Fall, they still have enough of God’s image within them as fallen humans to show others proper respect and character. We have enough of God’s image within us that we should be drawn to things of God rather than things of Satan—and for those regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit via the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah, that image should indeed have been restored.

Understanding what it means for a person to be made in the tzelem Elohim is significant. Christopher J.H. Wright asserts, “this forms the basis of radical equality of all human beings, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or any form of social, economic, or political status.”[23] He goes on to conclude, “Anything that denies other human beings their dignity or fails to show respect, interest and informed understanding for all that they hold precious is actually a failure of love.”[24] If one is to truly demonstrate God’s commanded love (seen in both the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures) to His human creatures, then one must recognize that there is a strong value placed on them as made in His image. To stretch the meaning of Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (RSV), by not demonstrating Yeshua’s love to others—could it be considered tantamount to murder?

The human being is of extremely high value, especially in comparison to the rest of Creation. Being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) obviously means that human beings possess unique qualities that those of the animal kingdom do not possess. In the Creation account, Genesis 2:7 says “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” One part of the human being, his/her body, is clearly of this Earth. Yet it is significant that nowhere in the creation of the animals is it said that the animals had nishmat chayim breathed into them. The Keil & Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament makes the important point, “the vital principle in man is different from that in the animal…The beasts [only] arose at the creative word of God.”[25]

The nishmat chayim breathed into man indicates that people do possess a uniqueness specifically endowed by their Creator, a part made not of this Earth. The Hebrew language has no specific word for “mind” or “consciousness,” but it is safe to say that this neshamah or specific “breath” from God, would help constitute it. In fact, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, the Apostle Paul only makes the point that “death spread to all men” (Romans 5:12), eis pantas anthrōpous or “to all humans.” Human death is by no means the same as animal death. To equate animal death and human death as being the same is to disregard the uniqueness of the human race in God’s Creation, and the Divine imprint He has placed upon all men and women. Throughout history, human culture has demonstrated a number of unique qualities, bearing witness to God’s imprint, including:

1.  awareness of a moral code “written” or impressed with a conscience

2.  concerns about death and about life after death

3.  propensity to worship and desire to communicate with a higher being

4.  consciousness of self

5.  drive to discover and capacity to recognize truth and absolutes[26]

Indeed, it is only the human race among all of God’s Creation which possesses intelligence, a capacity to reason, and verbal speech—making it different when compared to the animals.

Psalm 8 picks up on the theme of man made in God’s image, and specifically on the fact that God made man to rule over His Creation (Psalm 8:6-8). But the Psalmist’s assertion is a very important one that cannot be overlooked: “You have made him a little lower than God” (Psalm 8:5a) or “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings” (NIV). The Hebrew clause of interest is m’at m’Elohim, “lower than God,” rendered in the Greek LXX as brachu…par angelous, “a little less than angels” (LXE), due to the ambiguous nature of Elohim.[27] Regardless, though, the lot of humanity is not cast with the animal kingdom but instead with the Heavenly host; the Psalmist did not say that man was made “a little higher than the animals.” The debate that the Messianic movement has from time to time, about the intermediate state between the death of a person and resurrection would, in fact, be easily solved if we could understand what it means to be made in God’s image with human beings possessing qualities different than the rest of Creation.[28]

The day-to-day aspects of understanding what it means for human beings to be made in God’s image are quite severe for where sectors of the Messianic movement stand right now. Every person on Earth today has value in the eyes of the Creator, and it is the responsibility of those who have placed their trust in Yeshua to see value in other people. In today’s Messianic community, we often see a great deal of vehemence and hatred released against fellow brothers and sisters in the Christian Church, and even the Jewish Synagogue, much less those of other religions. I have sat in Messianic worship services where people have prayed that the Israeli army roll their tanks over “the cursed bones of their Muslim enemies,” but then have seen Israeli military being interviewed on television, testifying to the ethical dilemmas they face in defending their country. For some reason or another, rather than seeing value in Muslims as human beings made in God’s image, various persons in our faith community have thought that it is appropriate to treat them as animals—even though our Heavenly Father does not. The Lord is every bit as concerned for their salvation and redemption as we should be!

There are undoubtedly any number of reasons why the image of God, a critical issue in the Torah, is avoided every year in the annual cycle. Have we adequately dealt with the questions of a person’s composition? Do we really think that a human being is unique compared to the animals, or is no different than a dog or cat? Do we realize that each of us has a connection to the Heavenly dimension? Do we understand the responsibility for each of us to demonstrate love and respect toward others, because all of humanity bears the Divine imprint? This is an issue that simply cannot be avoided any more. What will it mean for the redeemed to rule and reign with the Lord throughout eternity?

Issue #2: Murder and Capital Punishment

today

Virtually every society on Earth, no matter how advanced or how primitive, abhors the practice of murder—a human life terminated for no good reason. Even before the prohibition against murder seen in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), the reason for God sending the Flood to judge humanity was because “the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11), most certainly involving manslaughter. After the Flood, the Lord tells Noah “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6), formally constituting the penalty of capital punishment for all who indiscriminately take a human life. Human life above all, as men and women are made in God’s image, is most precious to Him. When another human life is taken for no good reason, capital punishment is the most severe penalty that any person can impose on another person.

The topic of murder is not totally avoided by Messianics today. Murder, as terrible as it is, is a feature of the Biblical narrative. But what is often not discussed by Messianics today is murder and its relationship to capital punishment. There is a great deal of confusion between “killing” and “murder,” as terrible as both are, and the place of capital punishment in society today. The reason this is a serious subject to consider not only concerns the psychology of the murderer, but also the work of Yeshua at Golgotha (Calvary) for all sinners. Murder is arguably the most severe of all sins a human person can commit against another. It is justified for one to ask whether or not the death penalty for taking another life is valid in a time when Yeshua’s sacrificial work has removed the penalty of capital crimes as originally laid forth in the Torah.

It should first be noted, as it is by many Biblical scholars, that the King James Version made an error in translating Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 as “Thou shalt not kill.” Pacifists have a field day with this rendering, connecting it with Yeshua’s words on turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) as though people are not supposed to defend themselves against aggression—when that is not what is in view in the Decalogue, and property as opposed to a human life is the issue as specified in Matthew 5:40-42. The Hebrew verb ratzach primarily means “murder, slay, with premeditation” (BDB),[29] and was rendered in the Septuagint by the Greek phoneuō, “to murder, kill, slay” (LS).[30] Most of today’s modern Bible translations render these two commandments properly with “You shall not murder” (NASU, NIV, NKJV, NJPS, NRSV, ESV, etc.).

Numbers 35:9-34 issued some important legislation to the Ancient Israelites, specifically in terms of defining unintentional manslaughter, intentional manslaughter, the conviction of a murderer, and the establishment of various cities of refuge in the Promised Land. The Levites were to be given the administration of six cities of refuge (Numbers 35:10; cf. Joshua 20:1-9) for the specific intention that a person who has accidentally killed another may find asylum or sanctuary until a trial (Numbers 35:11-12). These places were set aside so that the victim’s family could not inflict any kind of vigilante style of justice, and proper jurisprudence would be observed. This kind of practice was not unique to the Ancient Israelites, as “Many peoples of the ancient Near East maintained certain places as asylums for fugitives accused of crimes; once the fugitive was within the sanctuary he could not be apprehended or punished, whether guilty or innocent” (ISBE).[31]

The instructions listed in Numbers 35:16-23 list a variety of factors that are to be considered by those who judge the accused, and specifically concern the method of the death in question, and the motives of the accused. The Torah’s instruction specifically says, “the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances” (Numbers 35:24). Also included is an allowance that should the accused leave the city of refuge, presumably trying to escape, the victim’s family is allowed to kill him without fault (Numbers 35:26-27). The trial of an accused murderer is so severe, the Lord says “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Numbers 35:30). The principle of multiple witnesses is required later so that “on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) regarding issues that have nothing to do with the trial of an accused murderer. So significant is the enactment of the death penalty against a murderer, the Torah does not allow any kind of a ransom to be allowed in his stead (Numbers 35:31), meaning that no one could buy his way out.

Many Christians who read through the Pentateuch have, at least unconsciously, the idea that Ancient Israel must have had a really long line of sinners being stoned or executed left and right, when indeed this is not the case at all. The procedures for executing a murderer as seen in the Torah are actually quite rigorous. Certain rights are afforded to the accused, whether death is caused intentionally or unintentionally, until the facts of the case can be determined. If the accused decides to leave the safety of the city of refuge, those rights have been forfeited. We can certainly see some parallels between the service of the Levites who oversee these cities of refuge, and those today who serve in the prison system, who do have to watch over accused persons—whether innocent or guilty—guaranteeing their safety in protective custody before trial.

The Torah very clearly places a high value on human life, and prescribes a serious penalty for those who murder: capital punishment. And indeed, many societies—both those preceding Ancient Israel and many thereafter—have likewise used capital punishment for condemnation of murderers. The dilemma for many people today, especially many Christians, is whether capital punishment is now acceptable given that the Messiah has come. Paul says in Colossians 2:14 that Yeshua has “canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” The death penalty pronounced upon sinners in the Torah, composing the cheirographon or “the bond” (RSV) against us, was remitted via His sacrifice. As a result, many in both Christianity and the Messianic movement believe that capital punishment is now no longer appropriate, and can be substituted with something less severe, such as life imprisonment. Is capital punishment now unacceptable, given that the Messiah has come and has been sacrificed for the sins of the world?

None of us should argue the fact that if capital punishment is to be practiced, specifically as a pre-Sinaitic ordinance (cf. Genesis 9:6), that it should not be used flippantly. What happens when a Messianic Believer is called to jury duty, and the accused person is on trial for murder? What if you have to decide whether or not a person is not only guilty, but if the death penalty is to be used as punishment? The facts of a case involving murder need to be carefully considered. Life imprisonment can be a safe alternative if the facts are inconclusive, yet the accused clearly does need to be separated from society.

Murder is not the only high crime seen in the Torah to which capital punishment has been assigned, but it is by far the most severe. Because murder is the most severe of all the crimes seen in the Torah, with capital punishment even stated as a penalty before Mount Sinai, it deserves special attention when compared to some of the other crimes with capital punishment attached.

Halachic innovation for capital crimes outside of murder is evidenced in 1 Corinthians 5,[32] where Paul writes concerning the incest going on in Corinth (5:1-5). The Torah prescribes the death penalty for this high sin, and related crimes involving adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality (Leviticus 20:10-16). Yet Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians is different: “to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Yeshua” (1 Corinthians 5:5). Such sinners were to be tossed out of the ekklēsia if not repentant, being consumed by their sin.

The offenders in Corinth had not committed murder, but were to be allowed to foolishly continue in their sinful behavior and suffer the physical consequences of it. When the destruction of their bodies would come—as a clear result of their gross sin—the mercy and grace offered by the sacrifice of Yeshua would be there to save them, with Paul hoping that by such a point the offenders would have realized the futility of their sin. In this case, the definition of the sexual sins in the Torah certainly remained the same, but the capital punishment demanded of them had been taken away by Yeshua’s atoning work. The halachah for the Apostles seems to be that with the arrival of the Messiah, ex-communication from the assembly has replaced the capital punishment specified for many high crimes in the Torah.

Issue #3: Slavery

ancient times

The most significant event of the entire Torah is the Exodus of Ancient Israel from Egypt, and the deliverance of the Israelites from their servitude to Pharaoh. Moses admonished the people in Exodus 13:3, “Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place.” There is no doubting the fact that Ancient Israel was removed m’beit avadim or “from the house of slavery.” The Ten Commandments themselves open up with the declaration, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6). If the main feature of the Exodus was liberation from bondage, and the utter humiliation of the Thirteenth Century B.C.E. superpower by the removal of its workforce, then why do we see legislation in the Pentateuch regulating the practice of slavery? What do we do with slavery as Biblical interpreters who live in the Twenty-First Century, where such a practice is viewed as utterly abhorrent? Immediately after the Ten Commandments are delivered in Exodus 20, Exodus 21:1-6 lists a series of regulations regarding an eved Ivri or a “Hebrew slave,” which could be viewed as somewhat antithetical to the whole message of Israel being removed from Egyptian bondage.

This is a significant area of difficulty for Messianics, especially when various “Torah teachers” in our midst forcibly assert that “all” of the Torah can be followed today. Such people either make the mistake of having to allegorize or spiritualize commandments regulating slavery, forgetting their ancient context, or make the even worse mistake of acting like these things do not appear in the Biblical narrative. Any objective reader of the Torah cannot avoid the fact that slavery is a part of the Bible’s story, and that commandments regarding slavery were given to Ancient Israel. What are we to do with them today?

It must be observed that there is no specific differentiation in the Hebrew between what in English we could call a slave or a servant. The Hebrew word eved means both “slave” and “servant” (CHALOT).[33] Likewise, the Greek term doulos, often used to render eved in the Septuagint and whose usage carries over into the Apostolic Scriptures, means “a born bondman or slave” (LS).[34] Some English translations like the NASU provide the rendering “bond-servant” for either eved or doulos in some locations, but the source vocabulary in either Hebrew or Greek does not provide a specific term that would substantiate something beyond “slave” or “servant.”

Any kind of slavery or servanthood regulated in the Tanach primarily concerns Ancient Israel functioning in an Ancient Near Eastern economic system. The Torah’s commandments regarding slavery can most often be divided into categories regarding debt-bondage and manumission (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15),[35] whereas a great deal of slavery in the surrounding cultures—primarily of Mesopotamia and Egypt—was focused around the people of those societies being the subjects of a deity-monarch. The Ancient Mesopotamian creation story Atrahasis depicts humanity being created by the gods specifically so that they could serve as slaves,[36] when set against the Biblical creation account where humanity is made to commune with God in a garden planted by Him (Genesis 3:8). While even a slavery for repayment of debt may have never been something desirable, the rules for such slavery as seen in the Torah do afford the slave considerable rights.

When one reviews the Torah instructions regarding slavery, one sees that male and female slaves within Israel were expected to participate in the Passover (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:44), to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14), to live wherever they please (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), and severe penalties are placed upon masters who abuse their slaves (Exodus 21:20-27). G.H. Haas notes in the Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, “Israelites who must sell themselves into bondservice (because of personal impoverishment or inability to pay a debt or a fine) are not permitted to be treated like foreign slaves. They may not be sold as chattel slaves to other masters. Their time of service to fellow Israelites is limited to six years, and to resident aliens it is limited to the Jubilee Year.”[37]

This kind of “slavery” is what is witnessed in Exodus 21:1-6, specifically in what is often termed the law of the bondservant. A Hebrew slave was only allowed to sell himself into service for a maximum of up to six years (Exodus 21:2), and had to leave the master’s care with adequate provision (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). If he went into servitude with his wife, he and his wife were to leave together (Exodus 21:3). However, should the slave’s master provide him with a wife resulting in children, such a wife and children could not leave the master’s house with him (Exodus 21:4). What this would do, in many cases, is create a permanent bond between the slave and his master’s household, as Exodus 21:5 records a slave saying “I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man.” The male slave could take a physical mark on his ear designating his permanent bond to his master’s house (Exodus 21:6). The reason for allowing a male slave to be permanently bonded to his master’s house is a clear, if obvious one when this regulation is set against its ANE context. Sarna indicates,

“In the ancient Near East it was common practice for a master to mate a slave with a foreign bondwoman for the purpose of siring ‘house born’ slaves. In such instances, no matrimonial or emotional bond was necessarily involved, and the woman and her offspring remained the property of the master.”[38]

Allowing a slave to willingly be bonded to his master’s house was a safeguard so that the master would never treat the wife he provided, and the children sired, as some kind of expendable property. If a slave showed love (Heb. verb ahev) toward his master, wanting to become a permanent member of his household, by necessity the master would have to show some respect and care for his family who would now be bonded to him. While this is difficult for many people in the Twenty-First Century to understand, we have to put ourselves back into ancient times. Selling oneself into bondage was the only way for some to exit financial straits. This is where the Pentateuch parallels contemporary law codes of its period, as the Code of Hammurabi from almost one-thousand years earlier had allowed for something similar:

“If a man incur[s] a debt and sell[s] his wife, son, or daughter for money, or bind[s] them out to forced labor, three years shall they work in the house of their taskmaster; in the fourth year they shall be set free” (117).[39]

Peter Enns reminds us, “the point of the law [in Exodus] is not to question the existence of this social condition, but to give clear guidelines for how people in such a condition must be treated.”[40] While in Hammurabi’s Code the period of servitude is shorter, the stipulation in the Torah is that when such a slave is let go, the master “shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:14). The significance of the Exodus 21 instruction being delivered right after the occurrence of the deliverance from Egypt was for the Ancient Israelites to never treat such slaves, having to sell themselves to pay off debts, the way that they were treated harshly and unfairly by the Egyptians. Here, we see a direct example of the Torah instructing Ancient Israel in its ancient world, and it is safe to say that the Exodus 21:1-6 commandments classify as casuistic law applying to a specific situation and not for all times.

Some Christian and Messianic interpreters have tried to allegorize Exodus 21:1-6 as Believers now relating to Yeshua the Messiah as His “bond-servants,” per varied references to the Apostles serving as douloi of the Lord.[41] This view runs into a problem because of the verses immediately following in Exodus 21:7-11, which begin with the instruction “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.” It is fairly difficult to spiritualize or allegorize these verses, absolutely requiring us to place them in their ancient context. The Apostles’ service as the douloi or avadim of the Lord is not a connection to Exodus 21:1-6, but rather their association to the previous avadim of the Lord who had preceded them such as Moses and the Prophets,[42] indicating how serious their authority from God actually was.

Just like the man having to sell himself into slavery to pay debts, a father had the right to sell his daughter to a family (Exodus 21:7), presumably because the family was destitute and did not possess the resources to provide for the daughter’s well-being. As Kaiser is clear to point out, “This pericope pertains to a girl who is sold by her father, not for slavery, but for marriage.”[43] Such a female, if displeasing in the eyes of her master, had to be let go “redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her” (Exodus 21:8). Such a female was to be treated as a fellow daughter should the master designate her as a wife for his son (Exodus 21:9), with the stipulation as Sarna indicates, “she would normally be protected from sexual abuse.”[44] And, should the master choose another woman instead of her as his wife, she was not to be denied life essentials (Exodus 21:10). If the master failed to uphold the terms of the female being sold to him—by refusing to marry her, refusing to give her to his son, or refusing her to be redeemed—then she could go away without having to pay him anything (Exodus 21:11).

Perhaps the closest parallel that we see in more modern times would be the practice of arranged marriages adhered to in many cultures, where marriages between families have more do to with the maintenance of property and/or strategic alliances than romantic love. This does not mean that love is a factor that is not there (think Queen Victoria and Prince Albert), but love may not be the immediate motivation. Some sectors of European royalty can easily come to mind, particularly in the close relationship of royals from the weak German states historically having a link with the British crown by providing (Protestant) royal spouses for princes and princesses. Likewise, consider the role of a nanny or a tutor being permanently connected to aristocratic and/or well-to-do families as part of the extended household. Exodus 21:7-11 is best thought of in this kind of context. Today, however, due to the advances in economy in the Western world, Exodus 21:7-11 has few parallels due to the ease of getting a paying job and welfare programs offered by the state. People do not often have to be “married out” to ensure their well-being. Nevertheless, the Torah’s instructions seen in Exodus 21:1-11 about “slavery” did have some differences when compared to other law codes of the same period.

There is no indication in the Torah that its slavery was to be encouraged as a permanent practice for Ancient Israel; it is simply regulated as a practice that existed, having been available to those one step below utter poverty. So we should no by means be surprised, especially with the emphasis of equality for all that we see in the Apostolic Scriptures (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11), that for the first Believers in Yeshua slavery was a practice that was on the way out. In fact, speaking about a generation before Yeshua, the great Sage Rabbi Hillel said, “lots of slave girls, lots of lust; lots of slave boys, lots of robbery” (m.Avot 2:7)[45]—largely negative words on the practice. Such sentiments no doubt affected the Apostle Paul, having been a member of the School of Hillel (cf. Acts 22:3).

By the Apostolic era, the ancient economy and banking had improved so that it was much easier for people to acquire jobs in the more “cosmopolitan” sense of the word, even though some would be closely attached to various households as servants. While some Jews during the time of Yeshua owned slaves in the First Centuries B.C.E and C.E.,[46] by no means did slaves ever become the kind of force like they were for the Ancient Egyptians, as they served much more menial functions. The New Testament reflects a rather progressive view when it regards Believers in Yeshua owning slaves, and does not encourage Believers to own other Believers. Slaves who believed in Yeshua were to not be disobedient to their masters who did not believe, but they were to demonstrate proper character because of their faith (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1).

The Messianic Writings do envision the day when members of the community of Believers in Yeshua would never have to sell themselves into servitude. Instead, all are to be treated as fellow brothers and sisters, and the ekklēsia is to provide for the needs of the destitute. Acts 2:45 attests that the first Believers “sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.” Paul’s instruction to Philemon regarding the runaway slave Onesimus is, “perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Philemon 15-16).[47] The New Testament undeniably sees the time when all human beings will be emancipated (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:21), and any Messianic today who would argue that slavery is a practice still to be followed—seeking justification from the Torah to do so—is taking the Torah out of its ancient context and is forgetting the trajectory of the Scriptures back to the equal status of all human beings as seen in Eden.

The Pentateuchal laws of slavery can actually teach us some important things about how radical the Torah was for the Ancient Israelites to follow, when compared against the law codes of some of their neighbors. It can teach us important things about the character of God, as well as a steady plan to restore humanity back to its original condition. But, such Torah commandments regarding slavery are very clearly case laws that were given for a different time and a different economic environment, and they cannot be followed today.[48] Other than deriving principles on the great respect the Torah shows for others in low social straights, the Messianic movement must stand with the halachah of today’s Jewish Synagogue whereby these commandments cannot be followed in the economy of the modern world.

Issue #4: Lying

today

The Ninth Commandment is a fairly direct injunction against lying: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20). The Book of Proverbs issues many injunctions against a false witness, including, “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who tells lies will not escape” (19:5); “A false witness will perish, but the man who listens to the truth will speak forever” (21:28); and “Like a club and a sword and a sharp arrow is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor” (25:18). It is not stereotypical to say that those who lie to others almost always have malicious intent behind what they say—or do not say. The witness of the Scriptures is clear that those who lie against God will pay for it, as is evident by the example of Ananias and Sapphira:

“But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’ And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, ‘Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?’ And she said, ‘Yes, that was the price.’ Then Peter said to her, ‘Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.’ And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband” (Acts 5:1-10).

The context of the death of Ananias and Sapphira is that they committed to selling a piece of property, and then to give all of the money to the efforts of the Believers. They did not give all of the money, and then they lied to the Holy Spirit when confronted by the Apostle Peter—so they died. So why is it important that we discuss the subject of “lying”? What makes this a frequently avoided issue in the Torah for today’s Messianics? Is it not a straightforward matter in the Scriptures?

One of the biggest ethical issues in both Jewish and Christian Bible teaching concerns those instances when it is, in fact, justified to not tell the truth. Now, atheists and agnostics who oppose the Ten Commandments being displayed in a court room will still advocate that telling the truth under oath is required in a court of justice—but that is not the issue at stake here. The issue at stake here is not lying to the Holy Spirit, nor even to fellow Believers should one be confronted with a sin or inappropriate action. The issue at stake here is whether there are ever exceptions to the rule, and determining what those exceptions might be.

It is not that surprising that a place Messianics encounter very early in the Torah cycle, in Lech Lecha (Genesis 12:1-17:27), actually includes an ethical controversy that we frequently avoid. The Patriarch Abraham and his extended company are forced to move to Egypt because of a famine in Canaan, and while they enter into Egypt, Abraham instructs his wife Sarah, “Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may live on account of you” (Genesis 12:13). Here, Abraham actually tells his wife to lie to the Egyptians! Why?

In Genesis 26:5 the Lord says “Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws,” which although were certainly added to at Mount Sinai with Israel-specific ordinances, surely at the time included an understanding of telling the truth. This is a basic precept which all major cultures, even those sitting outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, highly value. Why did Abraham tell his wife to lie to the Egyptians, saying that she was his sister and not his wife?

It may be that there is an historical explanation for Abraham wanting Sarah to say this, particularly as it regarded his own life. J.H. Hertz comments, “To kill the husband in order to possess the wife seems to have been a common royal custom in those days. A papyrus tells of a Pharaoh who, acting on the advice of one of his princes, sent armed men to fetch a beautiful woman and make away with her husband.”[49] Surely enough we see that “the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. Pharaoh's officials saw her and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house” (Genesis 12:14-15). While it may be said that Abraham had a lack of faith for God to protect him, after Sarah is taken into the Pharaoh’s house a plague hits and Abraham and his company leave Egypt unharmed (Genesis 12:17-20).

Rabbis and theologians have wrestled for centuries with the question of whether or not there are justified times to lie, particularly when one’s life is on the line. The Jewish concept of Pikku’ach Nefesh or Regard for Human Life allows for any commandment of the Torah to be broken, save those prohibiting idolatry, in order for a life to be saved. Lying about one’s Jewish background to Nazis would clearly fall under this category. Lying about one’s Israeli citizenship to hostile Muslims would also apply. Likewise, many Christians of the Second-Fourth Centuries lied to the Romans in order to avoid persecution. While these may be some extreme examples, they are nonetheless examples that cannot be excluded from future Messianic examinations of Biblical ethics—and whether or not there are justified instances for Messianic Jews to lie to other Jews that they believe in Yeshua. Our Lord does clearly say, “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33). Clearly, questions are being asked of our faith community now that are not easily answered. And, this issue will become even more complicated as the return of Yeshua draws near, and with it the prophesied despotic reign of the antimessiah/antichrist.

Issue #5: Animal Sacrifice

ancient times

Believers in Yeshua the Messiah rightly recognize that His sacrifice at Golgotha (Calvary) has changed the dynamics between the original giving of the Torah, and the way things stand today. Hebrews 9:26 affirms, “at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” specifically “having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Hebrews 10:12). While we will not sacrifice animals for the atonement of our sin—even though the Millennial Kingdom Temple described in Ezekiel chs. 40-44 does depict memorial animal sacrifices occurring—Messianic Torah studies will nevertheless encounter animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifice was a very important part of the Tabernacle service, and makes up a considerable part of the Books of Leviticus and Numbers in the Pentateuch.[50] It makes up a part of the Jerusalem Temple service (cf. Romans 9:4), and would have served as a memorial for the Jewish Believers of the sacrifice of Yeshua in the period after His resurrection (cf. Acts 3:1).

It is not that surprising why there are not detailed studies by today’s Messianics on the sacrificial system of the Torah, even though it does possess shadows of the final sacrifice of Yeshua (Hebrews 10:1). Even the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church have difficulty with this part of the Torah, “for the two traditions have both been attracted to and repelled by the image of slain animals being offered up within the sacred precincts” (ABD).[51] It is much easier for all of us to go right to the declarations of the Prophets who often denounce what would become much of Ancient Israel’s hollow attempt at sacrificing animals: “‘What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?’ says the LORD. ‘I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; and I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats’” (Isaiah 1:11). While the Prophets’ words of improper sacrifice are all too valid—they can lose their significance if one does not have some kind of knowledge of the sacrificial system of the Torah.

It is entirely inappropriate for anyone examining the Torah to think of animal sacrifices in broad terms, as there are a variety of specific types of sacrifices specified in its instruction to Ancient Israel. Leviticus chs. 1-7 lay out some of the general rules for animal sacrifice, specifically “where to bring the animal, how to lay on hands, where to kill it, how to handle its blood, how to prepare the altar, and what to burn on the altar” (EDB).[52] These chapters conclude with the word, “This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering and the sin offering and the guilt offering and the ordination offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings, which the LORD commanded Moses at Mount Sinai in the day that He commanded the sons of Israel to present their offerings to the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai” (Leviticus 7:37-38). There were specific procedures to be followed, indicating the sacredness of this practice.

Occasions for animal sacrifice as seen in the Torah can be divided among three general categories: (1) the ordinations of the priests and Levites (Leviticus 8-9; Numbers 8), and the dedication of the Tabernacle (Numbers 7); (2) the sacred festivals and daily burnt offering (Leviticus 16, 23; Numbers 28-29); and (3) rituals pertaining to the life cycle such as childbirth (Leviticus 12), leprosy (Leviticus 13-14), a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6), impurity (Leviticus 15:13-15), and corpse defilement (Numbers 19). Knowing this provides an appropriate framework for the times we see in the Torah when animals were to be sacrificed, as indeed the instructions are very specific. Animals were to be of a very high and distinct quality, thus constituting a “sacrifice,” as many of them had to be offered as some kind of “covering” for the wrongdoings of human people (cf. Leviticus 17:11). It is important that each of us keep in mind that for an agrarian society as Ancient Israel, animals of high quality constituted the wealth of many people. To a certain extent, killing such animals would not be that dissimilar from burning paper money today!

There are four main types of animal sacrifice that are detailed in the Torah, including:

1.  a burnt offering or olah

2.  peace offerings or shelamim

3.  a purification offering or chattat

4.  a reparation offering or asham

We are at a disadvantage in the Twenty-First Century, because animals do not often make up the livelihood and wealth of modern persons the same way as they did the ancients. Animal sacrifice was by no means something limited to the Ancient Israelites, and even the Greeks and Romans to whom the Apostles ministered in the First Century would have had a better idea about its significance than we usually do. When Messianics encounter things like the olah (Leviticus 1; 6:8-13; Numbers 15:1-10), various shelamim (Leviticus 3; 7:11-34), the chattat (Leviticus 4:1-5:1; 6:24-30), or the asham (Leviticus 5:14-6:7; 7:1-7)—we often have no idea what to do because we are so removed from the time of the events. While it is absolutely true that the repetition of these various animal sacrifices, whether offered for the restitution of some crime or sin, does point to our corporate need of Yeshua’s final sacrifice—we can still miss the point of why these sacrifices were prescribed in God’s Law for the time prior to Yeshua. We can often miss out on a great deal of what Moses was instructing the Ancient Israelites, and the role that animal sacrifice would have played in the economy of the ancient period. It may be that all that can be said right now is that our paying attention to detail in this area needs improvement.[53]

When surveying the specific instructions regarding animal sacrifice in Leviticus and Numbers, you should be struck by the fact that the quality of the animals has to be very high. A frequent term used in the Hebrew text to describe this quality is tamim, which can mean either “complete, unscathed, intact,” or “without fault, free of blemish” (HALOT).[54] In a non-cultic sense, tamim is employed in Deuteronomy 18:13 where “You shall be blameless [tamim] before the LORD your God,” describing the moral character of God’s people.

Just as the animals that were to be offered in their stead were to be “blameless,” so are God’s people to be blameless. The Apostle Paul, in all likelihood reflecting on the sacrificial system of the Torah, wrote the Romans, “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1). This was not just a statement about the need to be living in obedience to the Lord, worshipping and serving Him—but just as the animals offered in the Tabernacle and Temple were to be of the highest quality, so were they! Just as the animals offered in sacrifice had to be tamim, so are Believers to be tamim. This is especially true of anyone who serves God’s people in the ekklēsia in a formal ministry capacity—as such individuals are to be of the right spiritual temperament, possessing discernment, wisdom, knowledge, the intelligence and reasoning capacity, and even the training to serve Him in such a position well. Connecting the sacrificial system in Leviticus and Numbers, Romans 12:1, and with these themes will undoubtedly be a very important thing for the future Messianic movement.

Issue #6: Genocide

ancient times

One of the most significant claims against the Tanach, particularly as argued by both critics of the Bible and liberal theologians, is that the Old Testament portrays a God who is intent on killing everyone who opposes Him. It does not take that much to find that a great deal of criticism against the Bible is focused around the view that the Lord is genocidal, telling the Ancient Israelites to move into a location and utterly decimate a population and its property. Much of the Messianic movement has made a mistake in failing to address these issues from a proper, conservative perspective that seeks to understand whether or not God is really “genocidal.”

While there are some significant examples in the Pentateuch that are often argued as being “genocidal,” from the Flood of Genesis 6-8[55] to the judgment on the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 11-12)[56]—both of which may be classified as “acts of God”—what should concern us the most regarding “genocide” is seen in the Book of Deuteronomy as Ancient Israel prepares to take the Promised Land:

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).

For a God who has just called His people to love Him in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-6), it is no wonder why this kind of instruction is often overlooked in our reading of V’et’chanan (Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11). But it is clear that if our engagement with Biblical Studies is to improve, these kinds of issues cannot be avoided any more. The verb charam, occurring in the Hifil stem (casual action, active voice), means “ban, devote, exterminate” (BDB),[57] and appears twice in v. 2: hacharem tacharim otam or “doom them to destruction” (NJPS). Deuteronomy 7:22-26 further details,

“The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, for the wild beasts would grow too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will deliver them before you, and will throw them into great confusion until they are destroyed. He will deliver their kings into your hand so that you will make their name perish from under heaven; no man will be able to stand before you until you have destroyed them. The graven images of their gods you are to burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, or you will be snared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it come under the ban; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned.”

In this case, we see some of the reasons why the Lord commands Ancient Israel to go and wipe out the inhabitant nations of Canaan—He does not want the Israelites to adopt their religious worship. Those who would flippantly accuse God of being “genocidal” do not often consider why He commands the Israelites to go in and wipe out those inhabitant nations. Deuteronomy 9:5-6 gives us the reason why:

“It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people.”

Here, it is plainly stated ki b’rishat ha’goyim ha’eleh, “because of the wickedness of these nations” that God is going to exterminate them from the Promised Land. Before this word is delivered in Deuteronomy, this great wickedness has already been detailed in Leviticus 18, where the Lord says “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3). This chapter primarily prohibits various sexual activities: males are not to have intercourse with their mothers (Leviticus 18:7) or sisters (Leviticus 18:9) or aunts (Leviticus 18:12-13), and both homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23) are strictly forbidden. Perhaps of most significance to the Israelites entering into Canaan is Leviticus 18:21: “You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.”

The worship of the Canaanite deity Molech was a most serious sin that the Ancient Israelites were not to fall prey to, and was something that was quite ancient even before the time of Moses. Molech worship usually involved child sacrifice, and while there was variation in how it was performed, “It is usually assumed that children were thrown into a furnace or fire as part of a ceremony, though whether they were killed or made insensitive is uncertain” (ISBE).[58] It is sometimes thought that the screaming cries of an infant burning alive were meant to be the worship of the deity. The brutal murder of innocent children to this god, and the utter corruption it brought to Canaanite society, are undeniably some of the reasons why God would have told Israel to move in and wipe them out. The Canaanites being wiped out had nothing to do with the Israelites; it had everything to do with themselves!

Unfortunately, the witness of the Book of Joshua is that not all of the Canaanites were able to be removed from the Promised Land,[59] and so the Patriarch Joshua admonished Israel before dying: “Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you will not associate with these nations, these which remain among you, or mention the name of their gods, or make anyone swear by them, or serve them, or bow down to them” (Joshua 23:6-7). The later testimony of 1&2 Kings shows that in failing to purge all of the ungodly influences from the Promised Land, the sin of Molech worship was a major factor in seeing the United Kingdom of Israel divide (1 Kings 11:7ff), and the kings of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms did in fact offer their own children to the fire (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17, 31; 21:6; cf. 2 Chronicles 28:3).

It is very difficult for any of us to comprehend a loving God commanding His chosen people to utterly exterminate another people—especially today when we look back at a Jewish history complete with Hitler’s Holocaust. But apparently the sin of the Canaanites had been so abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord, that similar to the judgment issued upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Israelites were to eliminate this influence from the Promised Land. And surprisingly enough, as we view these events within a much larger canonical context, eliminating the Canaanites as seen throughout much of Joshua may actually be an example of God’s mercy. It can be an example of mercy for the people, as Revelation 20:12 says the unrighteous condemned are to be judged “according to their deeds.”[60] They do not all receive the same degree of punishment in the Lake of Fire. So in the case of the Canaanites, by the Israelites eliminating them with occupying the Promised Land, they did in fact stop the Canaanites from receiving any further eternal judgment by Almighty God.

Our improvement for understanding the issue of Divine “genocide” can only take place by Messianics understanding the religious depravity of the Ancient Canaanites and their possible influence on the Ancient Israelites. When we can stop avoiding this issue and comprehend the deplorable practice of Molech worship and its child sacrifice, we can then understand how important the Torah’s regulations on wiping them out would have been. This was by no means the kind of worship that God wanted His chosen people to practice, but the sad testimony of later sections of the Tanach is that they actually did.[61]

Issue #7: Development and Advances of Gender Relations

today

A significant part of the trajectory built into the Scriptures is the equalizing of the male and female genders (Galatians 3:28), and the wholescale avoidance of this issue is seen in the vast majority of the Messianic movement. In the opening chapters of the Torah, male and female are depicted as being fully equal in the Garden of Eden, yet as a consequence of the Fall such equal status became inevitably skewed. The man was made first,[62] but was lonely and needed “a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18) or an ezer kenegdo. In its various forms, the root a-z-r regards various functions of “help,” perhaps most significantly as its verb form is “Used approximately eighty times in the OT, ‘āzar generally indicates military assistance” (TWOT).[63] The creation of the woman to help the man was not just as some “helpmate,” but rather to give the man a significant ally for the challenges he would face in life.

Eve had not been properly taught by her husband the full consequences of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and she was deceived by the serpent (cf. Genesis 3:1-6, 13). When Adam eats the forbidden fruit himself and is confronted by the Lord, he falsely thinks that he can blame his wife for handing it to him (Genesis 3:12). Even though man and woman are cursed by their sin, and are forced out of the Garden, the promise of redemption is provided (Genesis 3:15). But there is also a word given in that childbirth for the woman from that point would be quite painful, and as most Bibles render it, “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16, NASU). It is often believed that this is Biblical justification for male dominance over women, who will just have no choice but to “desire” men.

The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16 employs a rare word, teshuqah, that the woman will possess. It is used only one other time in Genesis, when the Lord tells Cain, “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire [teshuqah] is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).[64] Hamilton rightly comments, “the desire of the woman for her husband is akin to the desire of sin that lies poised ready to leap at Cain. It means a desire to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. The sinful husband will try to be a tyrant over his wife. Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God’s creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who reigned as one attempt to rule each other.”[65] Far be it from this “desire” or “urge” (NJPS) being a good thing—it is a very bad thing! The husband, one who is physically stronger than the wife, will have no choice but to overpower her in such a situation. So clearly, knowing that Yeshua has now been sacrificed in fulfillment of the prophetic word to Eve that the Seed of the woman would bruise the serpent (Genesis 3:15), man and woman are to now be “one in Messiah Yeshua” (Galatians 3:28). They are not to be locked in a bitter struggle against one another!

The difficulty for many in understanding the remainder of the Torah is that it does depict Patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and later the Ancient Israelites, in a society that is dominated by men. In the past decade, significant parts of the Messianic world have found themselves entering back into that struggle of the woman wanting to dominate the man, and then the man forcibly ruling over the woman and then shoving her into the corner. Not enough men in our faith community understand that the Torah lays the first stepping stones back to the male and female equality, and shared responsibility, as originally experienced in Eden by Adam and Eve. Few are willing to discuss the fact that the work of Messiah Yeshua has inaugurated a new status of equality for the sexes. The condition as seen in Eden before the Fall is a condition that is to be seen in marriage relationships today, with a husband and wife in submission to one another as equal partners (Ephesians 5:21-28), with both guided by the Holy Spirit, in alliance with one another as they face the challenges of life.

When set against its ANE context, the Pentateuch actually lays forth some commandments that were absolutely radical for their time, affording women a wide array of considerable rights—and demanding some important things of men to respect them. The great civilizations of the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians, as well as the varied Canaanite city-states, all had religious practices focused around some kind of sexual rites. It is no surprise why proper sexuality between men and women plays an important part of the Torah’s instruction for Israel, not only for the women to be respected as human beings—but also for the men to control themselves.

The Lord asks males among His people not to have sexual relations during a woman’s menstrual cycle (Leviticus 20:18). While some might consider such a request to be burdensome, per our “sexually liberated” post-modernist world, this is actually quite respectful to the woman. The period of a woman’s menstruation is one of the most uncomfortable periods of the month for her. Far be it from sexual intercourse being something that can be practiced whenever couples want, the Torah does place some restrictions on it so it can be a very rewarding, fulfilling, and indeed pleasurable time between a husband and wife. This is why Hertz is able to rightly assert, “While recognizing the sacred nature of the estate of wedlock, Judaism prescribes continence even in marriage…It categorically demands reserve, self-control, and moral freedom in the most intimate relations of life. It ordains the utmost consideration for the wife…throughout the monthly period.”[66]

This particular sexual prohibition in the Torah forces the husband to actually respect his wife as a fellow human being and an equal person. Women are by no means to be treated as sex objects in the Torah, a venue by which a man is only to find physical fulfillment. Males in the Torah have a permanent reminder on their penises via their circumcision, as a sign of God’s everlasting covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-11). While a sign that they are connected to the Patriarch, John Goldingay is right to remind us, “it does draw attention to the need for their sexual activity to be disciplined and dedicated to God….Men [often] fail in this realm of their lives” and thus “The covenant sign becomes the covenant indictment and the covenant shame upon men. It is a mark of failure as much as a mark of status.”[67] It is up to the man to determine whether the ot b’rit a sign of honor or dishonor upon him.

Knowing the original condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall is very important, because the story that we see in the Torah is a steady progression back toward the equal status of the genders that was originally seen in Eden. The Torah does not at all treat women as simply property to be bought or sold. For an era where property could only be transferred to and from men, the daughters of Zelophehad went before Moses in the wilderness, as their father died without any sons. The Lord grants Moses the right to say, “If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The daughters were given the right to the achuzat nachalah or “hereditary possession” (Numbers 27:7). Ronald B. Allen makes the important observation, “The point seems to be that not only would they receive the property, they could transfer it to their heirs as well. Thus they share with the sons of the other fathers who were deceased. It is as though their father had had sons!”[68] Such rights were often unheard of among Israel’s contemporaries during this period, unless one was a female member of a ruling family (and hence considered either divine or semi-divine).[69]

Many Messianic men do rightfully show respect toward women, recognizing that the Torah requires husbands to treat wives with honor. They know that the sexual estate is something that must be kept in high regard, that a woman is to be treated with sensitivity during her menstruation time, and even that the Torah affords considerable inheritance rights to women. Yet even while acknowledging some kind of limited equality with females (or even a minimalist complimentarian model), many Messianic husbands have taken the instructions of Numbers 30 as being some kind of “reserve powers” for them, only afforded to males. When it is believed that the male “headship” of a family means that the man has the final word (as opposed to the “head” [Heb. rosh; Grk. kephalē] being the source like the headwaters of a river, as the Son comes from the Father, and Eve came from Adam),[70] this gets complicated. While husbands and fathers should surely be there to support their wives and children when mistakes are made by them, who is there to support the husband when he makes an egregious error? Is he on his own and alone?

Numbers 30:1-2 lays forth the requirement that if a man makes a vow to God, or some other kind of “binding obligation,” he must follow through on the commitment. Yet, the following instruction in Numbers 30:3-5 allows a father to cancel the word of his daughter should he hear it and not agree with it, which is later extended to her future husband (Numbers 30:6-9). This is followed by Numbers 30:10-14 which allows a husband to cancel the word of his wife, should he disagree. Widows or divorced women, however, are on their own with what they say, being accountable solely to themselves (Numbers 30:10).

Few of today’s Messianic men make the effort to place themselves in the position of the people living in Ancient Israel, to whom these instructions were originally given. Here, we plainly see that a wife is given the ability to make a vow to God, or commit herself (and by extension her household) to some kind of obligation. Allen indicates that this marks “the beginning of a movement to bring more personal freedom to women, but there are also numerous breaks applied here and there. This chapter is one of several that indicates that a change is in the works, even though the change is somewhat far off.”[71] Very seldom would a woman in the Ancient Near East even be allowed to make a vow to a deity, much less be responsible for making agreements on behalf of her household (cf. Proverbs 31:13-17). The regulations that permit a husband or father to cancel the commitment of a wife or daughter were issued to protect females from undo harm against a social background whereby they could be easily taken advantage of as the physically weaker sex.

The challenge today in the Messianic world is that the instructions of Numbers 30 are sometimes used to place a great deal of undo pressure on wives, who in some cases are in fear of their husbands and what they say to them. This runs into problems, especially when women often have greater freedom and opportunities in conservative Jewish and evangelical Christian arenas when compared to the Messianic movement. Is the Messianic community unable to see that we are not living in the same kind of society as the Ancient Israelites? If a husband and wife are truly experiencing oneness in a marriage relationship, always communicating in dialogue with one another, being filled with God’s Spirit—especially given the restored status of equality via the work of Yeshua—then extending the power of a husband to cancel his wife’s words should now clearly be given to the wife who can cancel her husband’s words, at the very least being able to counsel him. The significance of the Torah’s instruction in Numbers 30 for ancient times remains intact, but the changes brought in by the Messiah now alter its application.

You have to remember that the bulk of the commitments a wife would have made in the context of Numbers 30 largely concerned a family’s property. If a wife agreed to trade thirty high quality goats for twenty sub-standard sheep with another family, and the husband found out about it, clearly canceling the agreement would be in order. In a similar way, most wives who would cancel the words of their husbands today concern agreements that are made with incomplete information. If a husband commits himself and his wife to go to a dinner party on a certain evening, and the wife finding out about this knows that this conflicts with previous plans, can the wife cancel the commitment of her husband? In too much of today’s Messianic community—no. And if the husband really makes an egregious commitment that will be harmful to the family (and its finances), should a wife just keep quiet and allow her husband to do something foolish because he is a man and she is not? In the Messianic community of tomorrow that I am working for, wives need not correct the mistakes of their husbands with fear. Just as a husband should be there to serve his wife, backing her up when she falters—so should a godly wife be there to serve her husband, providing support for him as an ally when he falters!

Recognizing the equality of males and females that the work of Yeshua has restored, especially in a Messianic movement dominated by men (and sometimes even by blatant chauvinism), is not going to be easy. Being Torah observant in this framework will force us to reevaluate the contextual situations of various Torah commandments, and see how the Torah’s revelation began the process back to the oneness Adam and Eve were to experience in paradise. The process of inaugurating an egalitarian Messianic movement, where women are allowed equal responsibilities along with men, will not necessarily advance with our women demanding fair treatment from our men—but rather with our men demanding fair treatment of our women. While men such as myself may be harassed at first for demanding fair treatment of our women, perhaps even accused as being “feminists,” we have a responsibility to uphold the original example of Adam and Eve as something husbands and wives should strive to attain in their marriages.[72]

“It will be righteousness for us…”

There are certainly more than seven frequently avoided issues that Messianics encounter in the Torah, but the issues that we have just examined are those which I know we especially cannot avoid any longer. I believe in the potential that the Messianic movement has to be a force for greater holiness and righteousness in the world today, properly emphasizing a Torah foundation for our faith practice—but in order to be that force we must have a more significant level of engagement with the Biblical text. When controversial things arise, we cannot put our fingers in our ears or hide under our beds any more, acting as though the issues will go away. Instead, we need to realize that the Lord may have something to teach us about why Yeshua had to come die for us, and how salvation history (Ger. Heilsgeschichte) has steadily moved forward.

No single person can be redeemed via his or her obedience to the Torah. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it quite clear, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Yet the following verse, Ephesians 2:10, is often not quoted: “For we are His workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” Good works, obedience to God’s Torah, are to follow the salvation experience as the New Covenant is enacted within the hearts of His people (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Hebrews 8:8-12) as part of the sanctification process. Having a mind empowered by the Holy Spirit will give us the reasoning capacity we need to sort through those apodictic areas of the Torah which never change no matter the circumstances, and those casuistic areas of the Torah which regulated ancient circumstances.

A few in today’s Messianic movement actually (and quite foolishly) believe that their Torah observance will merit them eternal life. Does not Leviticus 18:5 say, “So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD”? The problem with this is not the declaration of Leviticus 18:5; it is that Leviticus 18 is concerned with proper sexual relations and the capital punishment enacted upon those who violate the prohibitions given. The promise of “life” concerns daily living within the sphere of God’s commandments—not some future promise of eternal life. If a person in Ancient Israel followed these commandments they would not merit the punishment of the death penalty and would thus “live”; more importantly the principle served is that if God’s commandments are followed, then a man or woman will experience a high quality of life lived out on Earth, within the sphere of His blessing.[73] This is to be contrasted with Habakkuk 2:4 which says “the righteous will live by his faith” in the Lord, as opposed to one who looks to man-made idols (Habakkuk 2:18-19), where eternal life in His presence is in fact the issue.

But what about Deuteronomy 6:24-25? If I perfectly keep the Torah will it not be righteousness to me? In Deuteronomy 6:24-25, one does find a statement of commitment made on the part of the Ancient Israelites. They declare before God, “So the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today. It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us.”

V. 25 is a bit more complicated, as the Ancient Israelites do say to the Lord u’tzedaqah tih’yeh lanu, “and righteousness it is for us” (YLT) if they were to observe all of God’s commandments. To some people, this might present the opportunity that if one were to observe all of God’s commandments, then it is possible to be righteous on the basis of such Torah-keeping or Law-keeping. Yet, if this is a possibility, then it is also notable that nowhere in Biblical history was Ancient Israel ever able to do this. The testimony of the Tanach (and even much of the Torah itself) is clear evidence that a fallen human person is incapable of living up to the requirement of v. 25 (cf. Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Romans 3:10). This is why a Divine Redeemer, Yeshua the Messiah, is understood in Romans 10:4 to be the telos…nomou…eis dikaiosunēn or “the goal of the Torah for righteousness” (author’s translation). Those desiring the righteousness the Torah requires of God’s people must look to Yeshua as the source (Philippians 3:9).

There is another view of Deuteronomy 6:25 which need not be overlooked. The Hebrew tzedaqah or “righteousness” has corporate dimensions that concern all of God’s people. Having tzedaqah in this case would not regard being individually “righteous” or “justified,” but simply being in covenant membership with the Lord and with other members of His community. TWOT explains some often overlooked aspects of this term,

“The covenant or theocratic aspect involves the nation of Israel, the covenant requires obedience to God by the nation and is the way of his people (Psa 1:1-6; Deut 6:25), a way of righteousness. God is righteous, under the covenant, when he delivers his people from trouble (Psa 31:1), their enemies (Psa 5:8), the wicked (Psa 37:6) and when he is vindicating Israel before her foes or executing vengeance on them (Jer 11:20). It is appropriate that Israel be assured of ultimate victory over her foes (Isa 54:14-17). In this last event the Lord is both righteous and the savior (Isa 45:21).”[74]

From this point of view, the affirmation on Israel’s part in Deuteronomy 6:25, to keep the Torah’s commandments, could be a reflection on the fact that they will be identified as God’s people by their obedience to Him. By obeying God’s commandments, the Torah was to provide Israel with a society that was safe and prosperous and thus have “righteousness” or “justification”—a corporate identification of being His people and being preserved by Him. Yet, it is also true that in Biblical history, Ancient Israel often failed at this.

Any Messianic teacher today who says that individuals can be righteous just by keeping the Torah is ignoring the whole of Scripture. While the standard of obeying God perfectly is placed before us, it is not something that fallen man is capable of doing. This does not mean that such a standard should be ignored, but it undoubtedly forces us to Yeshua because of our human incapacity to keep it perfectly.

James 2:10 is a reflection on our innate human inability to perfectly keep God’s Torah: “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” We have all done this at one point or another. James 2:10 is an affirmation that without God’s grace and mercy, available to all via Yeshua, human beings are indeed in one decrepit state. As we receive Yeshua’s salvation into our lives, we should then be able to understand the significant grace of God that has been demonstrated to us. We should not look for loopholes in regard to obedience to the Lord, but consider what Paul says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31, NIV). In “upholding the law,” we are required to be able students of God’s Word, and be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit given any changes that have taken place via the unfolding plan of salvation history.

Sadly, it is in this area where much of the Rabbinical tradition has the Messianic movement flat beaten—and it does not even acknowledge Yeshua as Savior! The Jewish Synagogue is actually much better and more mature at recognizing exceptions in the Torah observance of a Jew, than the Messianic movement can be of recognizing exceptions among the Torah observance of its constituents. The Rabbinic principle of Pikku’ach Nefesh, for example, allows the Torah to be broken (save commandments against idolatry) when a person’s life is at risk. It allows for doctors, police, firefighters, and military to work on the Sabbath—providing for the common safety. Pikku’ach Nefesh allows for people to buy medicine on Shabbat too. Pikku’ach Nefesh even allows for pork to be eaten when no kosher food is available, and a person needs sustenance to extend life (just think how many Jews in World War II survived the concentration camps).

Keeping God’s Torah is not intended to merit a person eternal life, but is rather to teach us about His holiness: “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways” (Deuteronomy 28:9). By understanding His Teaching, a follower can understand “what...the LORD require[s] of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). While it is quite en vogue in the Messianic movement to talk about Yeshua the Messiah as “the Torah made flesh”—this statement should not be made lightly, nor should it be some kind of ethereal remark about our Lord. Yeshua embodied what the Torah is in His teachings and actions, and modeled for us how we are to be obedient to the Father.

The Apostle Paul rightly recognized that he was not to have “a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Messiah, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Philippians 3:9). This did not make the Torah unimportant as a standard of holiness or proper living (cf. Romans 7:12), but the Torah is completely ineffectual to make a person righteous. The source of a Believer’s righteousness is Yeshua the Messiah and the redemption He provides. Obedience to God makes His people holy, and should empower them to perform His purposes in the world. That is where the Torah comes into play for us as Believers.

Remembering the Mission

Today’s Messianic movement in the early Twenty-First Century does not often possess a coherent vision for the future, nor does it often have a coherent missiology. On the whole, we do not know where we are going, nor do we know how we would even get there were we to know where we are going. The mission for Ancient Israel as stated in Exodus 19:6, “you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” prefaced by “for all the earth is Mine” (Exodus 19:5), is not something we commonly hear about in our Torah studies. We do not hear about God’s ownership of the entire world, and how Israel was chosen to testify of Him to that world. We do not often inquire of the Holy Spirit how we can make a difference in a world that needs to hear of the salvation of Yeshua. We do not spend enough time wondering how we can be a Kingdom of Israel maximized to be all of the things He wants us to be, which will lead to the restoration of His people and the return of King Messiah.

We have come to a time where our emerging movement must now consider all of those difficult, frequently avoided issues seen in the Torah. The two filters that we must read the Torah through include not only (1) the First Century halachah of Yeshua and His Apostles, but also (2) the world of the Ancient Near East in which Moses’ Teaching was originally given. As a faith community, it will be difficult for some of us to more readily consult ancient history in our reading of the Pentateuch, the role that halachah has played for the Synagogue, and asking ourselves whether various Torah commandments are apodictic or casuistic. Some people think that we, in fact, not only can but should return to the world in which the Torah was originally given. Others are keen to emphasize that there have been changes, and believe that we need to ask the question of how Yeshua and His Apostles would follow these commandments were they living among us as Jewish people today. I personally advocate the latter. Undoubtedly, a season of some tension will emerge for the Messianic movement as we sort through these, and many other things.

One of the biggest challenges that faces Messianic Biblical Studies is that many of our congregations and fellowships only address the weekly Torah portions. Too many do not even examine the weekly Haftarah reading, much less any other part of the Bible from Joshua-Revelation. This is a huge problem that has to stop. Addressing the weekly parashah is not the problem; ignoring other Scriptures and the totality of God’s Word is the problem. The weekly parashah has to be placed within a much larger canonical context. While we often accuse our Christian brethren of only examining the New Testament, Messianics are often just as guilty for only examining the Torah. And when they do examine the Torah, how many of the important issues encountered in the Torah are avoided? Surely you will agree that these trends are not good and need to be remedied for the future.

We each need to remember that the Hebrew Tanach, perhaps more than any other document consulted in comparative religion, really demonstrates the base humanity of its chosen people.[75] When you only read about “the Land” in the Torah, take important notice of the fact that the Ancient Israelites as a corporate people are never there. When they do finally get into the Promised Land as seen in Joshua-2 Kings, we immediately see what happens: “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). I believe that the enemy has wanted the Messianic movement to purposefully stay away from the remainder of the Tanach so that it will fail to see what happens when the Torah’s instructions—specifically some of those frequently avoided issues—are not taken seriously. The Messianic movement is here to fill in a huge gap in today’s spirituality—not make the gap wider! The Lord is waiting for a mature Messianic movement to emerge that can fulfill a great calling.

While it is good that a Messianic movement has arisen desiring Believers to see that the Torah has great benefits for study and teaching—we can never be blind to the fact that the arrival of Yeshua has inaugurated some new things. If we forget this, then we run the serious risk of damaging our unique testimony as a faith community that sits between the great theological traditions of both the Jewish Synagogue and the Christian Church. We have a Jewish theological heritage of halachah which recognizes that changes in Torah application take place because of the natural passage of time. And, we have a Christian theological heritage that has rightly upheld the sacrifice of Yeshua as being essential to one’s salvation. We need to learn to walk the tightrope between these two sectors with great precision and balance.

The Messianic movement needs to be very cognizant of its testimony in the days in front of us, as theologically we are outnumbered by both the Rabbis of Judaism and the theologians of Christianity. Our Father has surely stuck us in a unique place—a unique place for us to make a difference to two (not just one!) groups of people. People will be scrutinizing us, seeing if we can truly balance a life of faith in Messiah Yeshua in proper obedience to the Father’s commandments. People will be wanting to see if we are really living lives of positive spiritual change, and they will be watching us closely to see if we fall. Our Torah obedience must not only be a reflection of a great spiritual change within us as individuals, but corporately must begin to manifest itself as we are molded into a unique group of people maximized by the empowerment of God’s Spirit as His Kingdom is restored on Earth.

The Jewish people need to be shown an example of Torah obedience that will provoke them to jealousy for faith in Yeshua (cf. Romans 11:11). Christians need an example of Torah obedience that will show them that their widescale dismissal of the Old Testament in today’s generation has not been to their advantage, and that the Church has been suffering greatly from it. Doing this with hearts and minds guided by God’s love, knowing that the Bible is often not as simplistic as we have been led to believe it is, is not impossible for the Messianic movement—but it will probably take some time to implement.

In the short term, working through some of the frequently avoided issues of the Torah will be difficult, especially given the dynamics that will be changing in the Messianic community in the next decade of the 2010s. In the long term, as our level of engagement with the Scriptures improves—and we are able to join into the wider conversation—we will at last begin to see that “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21) come to pass. We can then be a mature, well-informed, and discerning Messianic movement where God’s people have a healthy view of both His Law and all of the Bible, and we can be all the things that Yeshua has modeled for us (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3-5).

I would encourage you to not avoid various issues you encounter in the Torah any longer. The Torah forms the foundation of the rest of the Bible, and as Paul rightly said, “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). Without understanding God’s revelation in the Torah, we will not understand the Prophets, Writings, Gospels, or Epistles. But equally so, our understanding of the Torah will be incomplete without those further Scriptures. All of the Bible forms the continual unveiling of God’s plan of salvation history. As the Messianic movement intends to play a role in that salvation history, let us be those who can work through those difficult issues, and be men and women “who have insight [that] will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and [will be] those who lead the many to righteousness” (Daniel 12:3). There does exist a great deal of work up ahead for the Messianic movement, and it is my prayer that we are all up to it! Let us have available answers for when the difficult questions are asked.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 2

[1] Consult the book Torah in the Balance, Volume I, and the forthcoming Volume II, by J.K. McKee, for an examination on the validity of these areas of the Bible for Believers today, and how these things can be realistically observed today in the Twenty-First Century.

[2] Acts 15:20: “things contaminated by idols” (cf. Exodus 34:15-17); “fornication” (cf. Leviticus 18:6-23); “from what is strangled and from blood” (cf. Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 14; 26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23; 15:23).

For a further discussion, consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[3] As a simple example (of many possible quotes) of this, commenting on Philippians 1:1-2 and Paul’s reference to he and Timothy being “servants of Christ Jesus” (RSV, NIV), Gordon D. Fee indicates, “They had entered the ‘society’ of a people whose roots were in Judaism and whose story had its origins in the Old Testament, a story that the Philippians by now would have known well in its Greek form—the Septuagint (LXX)” (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 63). This is an academic testimony to the fact that the early non-Jewish Believers were being trained in the foundational accounts of the Tanach.

[4] Consult the article “The Message of Exodus” by J.K. McKee.

[5] Surveying the Scriptures is by no means something unimportant, though, as it provides a Bible reader with a framework of understanding the great tapestry of God’s Word and the people, places, events, and concepts that it communicates. It is just that responsible Bible reading and instruction cannot end at surveying the Bible.

Consult the workbooks A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic and A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[6] Consult the article “The Role of History in Messianic Biblical Interpretation,” appearing in Introduction to Things Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[7] Consult Gene M. Schramm, “Languages (Hebrew),” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:203-214, for a thorough summary on the development of Hebrew as a language.

[8] For an example of this, consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website “Genesis 5, 11 Genealogies.”

[9] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 175.

[10] Walter C. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 122.

[11] Grk. dia tēs teknogonias, including the definite article “the” with the noun, pointing to Yeshua the Messiah and not the process of giving birth.

[12] 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Romans 3:25; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 9:26; 10:12, 19; 13:20.

[13] Consult the exegesis paper “Galatians 3:28: Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement” by J.K. McKee.

[14] Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God, 367.

[15] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 681.

[16] In the Rabbinical literature, halachah can mean “practice, adopted opinion, rule,” as well as “a traditional law or a traditional interpretation of a written law” (Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature [New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004], 353).

[17] In the Reformed tradition, passages such as Ephesians 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:14 are often interpreted as relating to the so-called ceremonial law of the Torah, not the Torah as a whole.

Consult the book The New Testament Validates Torah, and the commentaries Ephesians for the Practical Messianic and Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic, for a Messianic examination of these passages.

[18] Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 135.

[19] Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 11.

[20] Cf. Monte Judah. “The Leaven of the Pharisees” Yavoh: He is coming! Vol. 9 No. 9, September 2003.

[21] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1968), 372.

[22] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, reprint (Peterborough, UK: Epworth Press, 2000), 864.

[23] Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 423.

[24] Ibid., pp 423-424.

[25] E-Sword 7.6.1: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. MS Windows 9x. Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005.

[26] This list of five character traits is copied from Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, second expanded edition (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 55.

Among Hugh Ross’ other notable works include: A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004); Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008).

[27] The author of Hebrews applies Psalm 8:4-6 to Yeshua the Messiah and His Incarnation (Hebrews 2:6-10), whose ministry and service for the world restores redeemed humanity as second only to God in Creation.

Consult the commentary Hebrews for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee for a further explanation.

[28] Consult the publication To Be Absent From the Body by J.K. McKee.

[29] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 953.

[30] H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 869.

[31] S.G. deClaissé-Walford, “Refuge, Cities of,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. et. al., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4:66-67.

[32] For a summary on the events going on in Ancient Corinth, consult the entries for the Epistles of 1&2 Corinthians in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[33] William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988), 262.

[34] LS, 210.

[35] Cf. J. Albert Harrill, “Slave,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1232.

[36] Stephanie Dalley, trans., Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp 14-15ff.

[37] G.H. Haas, “Slave, Slavery,” in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 781.

[38] Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 119.

[39] W.W. Davies, The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2006), 57.

[40] Peter Enns, The NIV Application Commentary: Exodus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 444.

[41] Luke 2:29; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1; Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10; Philippians 2:7; Colossians 1:7; 4:7; 2 Timothy 2:24; Titus 1:1; Revelation 1:1; 15:3.

[42] Exodus 14:31; Numbers 12:7; 2 Kings 18:12; Jeremiah 25:4; Ezekiel 38:7; Amos 3:7; Zechariah 1:6; Daniel 9:6; Psalm 60:26.

[43] Walter C. Kaiser, “Exodus,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:430.

[44] Sarna, Exodus, 121.

[45] Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988), 676.

[46] Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, eds., A Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 590.

[47] Consult the entry for the Epistle to Philemon in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic.

[48] Cf. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), pp 97-98.

[49] J.H. Hertz, ed., Pentateuch & Haftorahs (London: Soncino, 1960), 47.

[50] Consult the entries for the Books of Leviticus and Numbers in A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic.

[51] Gary A. Anderson “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” in ABD, 5:871.

[52] Gary A. Anderson, “Sacrifices and Offerings,” in EDB, 1149.

[53] For further reading on the kinds of animal sacrifices seen in the Torah, consult E.E. Carpenter, “Sacrifices and Offerings in the OT,” in ISBE, 4:268-269; and R.E. Averbeck, “Sacrifices and Offerings,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, pp 710-722.

[54] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 2:1749.

Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 5:15, 18, 25; 22:19, 21; 23:12; Numbers 6:14.

[55] For a theological analysis of the Genesis 6-8 Flood, consult the article “Encountering Mythology: A Case Study from the Flood Narratives” by J.K. McKee. This article compares and contrasts the Genesis 6-8 Flood with the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh.

[56] It must be noted here that in the Book of Exodus the Egyptians had ample warning from God before this significant judgment was dispensed upon them.

[57] BDB, 355.

[58] R.K. Harrison, “Molech,” in ISBE, 3:401.

[59] Consult the entry for the Book of Joshua in A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic.

[60] For a further discussion of this, and related issues, consult the publication Why Hell Must Be Eternal by J.K. McKee.

[61] For a further review of this debated topic, it might be useful to consider some of the perspectives present in C.S. Cowles, Eugene Merrill, Daniel Card, and Tremper Longman III, Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

[62] God’s creation of the male first, and His own portrayal as male in Genesis, directly combated pagan teaching of the Ancient Near East (i.e., the Mesopotamian creation myth Atrahasis) where the first humans were birthed by a mother goddess. The Genesis 1-3 account runs completely contrary to this, as man and woman are made by the Lord ex nihilo or out of nothing (cf. Hebrews 11:3). Females must join with males in order to conceive a child, similar to how the womb-goddess must give birth. But from the Biblical point of view, God portrayed as male cannot give birth. On the contrary, He must create the first two human beings out of nothing. The male being made first by no means is an indication that females are somehow “worthless.”

[63] Carl Schultz, “azar,” in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:660.

[64] Teshuqah is more properly rendered as “urge” in the NJPS: “Yet your urge [teshuqah] shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16b).

[65] Hamilton, 202.

[66] Hertz, Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 491.

[67] John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), pp 202, 203.

[68] Ronald B. Allen, “Numbers,” in EXP, 2:943.

[69] An exception to this does appear in the Code of Hammurabi: “He may, however, transfer in writing a field, garden, or house, which he has acquired by purchase, and possesses, to his wife or daughter, or may assign for debt” (Davies, 39). It seems that women having these kinds of rights may be more of a Mesopotamian legal tradition than that seen among Israel’s more immediate neighbors, reminding us that the Patriarch Abraham and his company did originate from this region, likely bringing with them some social customs that would later appear in the Torah.

[70] 1 Corinthians 11:3.

See the comments in Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton, Why Not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), pp 163-170.

[71] Allen, in EXP, 2:958.

[72] The issue of Messianic egalitarianism is not easily addressed in a single article. Much more needs to be discussed over time. Consult the FAQ entry on the TNN Online website, “Women in Ministry,” and the relevant sections of the commentaries Ephesians for the Practical Messianic and Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

You may be interested to read Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), which summarizes some of the issues on the agenda that evangelical Christianity is currently struggling with—and the Messianic movement is soon to struggle with.

[73] Consult the FAQ on the TNN Online website, “Leviticus 18:5.”

[74] Harold G. Stigers, “tzadeq,” in TWOT, 2:754.

[75] This is not to say that the Apostolic Scriptures do not demonstrate the baseness of humanity, just that its genre as Gospels and Epistles does not as easily allow for expressing it as do the histories of the Tanach.

-3-

A Messianic Evolution? 2012

Mark Huey

One of the many blessings, of being intimately involved with the Messianic community of faith for nearly two decades, is the opportunity to reflect on the curious development of what we truly believe is a genuine move of the Holy Spirit.[1] By the grace of God, our family has not just been passive observers, since 1995, but we have also been called to be active participants, in attempting to bring forth, as accurately as humanly possible, what we believe the Lord is doing with His people at this time in history. This responsibility has not been taken lightly! We know that the Holy Scriptures place a higher degree of accountability upon those who are to exposit upon its truths:

“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1).

We humbly accept the privilege to instruct and exhort our readers and listeners, with teachings that we have strived to make sure are well researched, documented, and footnoted. Our approach in ministry has been to prayerfully pass on instruction and exhortation to this generation, which are valid summations of the progressive revelation that has come forth down through the centuries to God’s people (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2). Our methodology of teaching has required that our family maintains a careful and vigilant watch on contemporary trends, and how they are being used to bring others toward a Messianic lifestyle. Some of this has surely been good, but some of this has not been so good. Needless to say, the development of the Messianic movement has been something to behold—especially as the preponderance of Messianic-oriented teachers and voices appears to be growing exponentially. Is it an “evolution”? Is progress being made for the Kingdom of God as we steadily approach the return of Yeshua?

Our Family Journey

Allow me to tell you a few things about our family’s sojourn, so you can better understand our perspective. Back in the early 1990s, due to unexpected and undesired life’s circumstances—including the premature death of a spouse and an unwanted divorce—Margaret and I were compelled individually to seek God for answers. Providentially, after a twenty-one year hiatus from our relationship initiated in college, we were reacquainted at a university reunion that eventually resulted in our marriage. From our new beginning at midlife, with five children to be responsible for, we both knew that the God we loved had allowed the sad dissolution of two marriages, to unite us in holy matrimony for His purposes. Without going into all of the revelatory details that confirmed how the Lord was sovereignly orchestrating our union—we did receive one special word from the Holy Scriptures, which has been a guiding compass for our extraordinary journey as one in the Messiah Yeshua. Uniquely, Margaret received a Scripture about our future together while in prayer one night, and challenged me to confirm it without giving me a hint as to what or where the verses were located.

I knew how being married to a godly woman was a special blessing, but this challenge was something I had never encountered. However, since I knew we were worshipping the same God of Creation, I spent some time in fervent prayer, seeking an answer to her request. When the Holy Spirit led me to Isaiah 43 (which was the Scripture she had been given!) and I shared it with Margaret, she was amazed because the first half of the chapter dealt with aspects of the Bible that neither of us had spent much time studying:

“But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob, and He who formed you, O Israel, ‘Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine! When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, nor will the flame burn you. For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I have given Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in your place. Since you are precious in My sight, since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life. Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, “Give them up!” And to the south, “Do not hold them back.” Bring My sons from afar and My daughters from the ends of the earth, everyone who is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, whom I have formed, even whom I have made.’ Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes, and the deaf, even though they have ears. All the nations have gathered together so that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this and proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, or let them hear and say, ‘It is true. You are My witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, and there is no savior besides Me. It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there was no strange god among you; so you are My witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘And I am God. Even from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?’” (Isaiah 43:1-13).

When the Spirit of God leads you to confirm some powerful verses, which your wife has let you know are going to be your “life verses”—the Lord definitely has your attention riveted. As relative newlyweds, we read and studied these verses, intently trying to understand what God was trying to communicate to us. Needless to say, we really appreciated the aspects of protection from floods and fire, and God’s love as being so intense that He would exchange other lives for ours. Yet, the part we read, about the gathering of offspring from the four corners of the Earth, was new information which we had not really spent much time considering. Since we knew we were children of God who were called by Him, the admonition to bring in sons and daughters from afar was intriguing, especially because there is the implication that they are spiritually blind and deaf. The declaration that God’s people are to be witnesses to others and to the world was certainly inspirational.

With these verses imbedded in our hearts and minds, our spiritual journey as a couple was off to quite a start. Six months into our marriage, in late 1994, the Lord led us to take a tour to the Land of Israel with a Messianic Jewish ministry. As you can imagine, the revelation of the Scriptures began to unfold before our very eyes, as the Holy Spirit began to reveal meaning to Isaiah 43, with many complimentary passages, which pointed toward the restoration of Israel. One experience, while touring at Masada, was especially meaningful. Without any provocation or really knowing what I was about to read, I saw a sign posted at the ancient synagogue, located on the northern wall of the fortress, mention Ezekiel 37. Without any timidity toward or awareness of those gathered, I picked up my Bible, turned to the passage, and out the open window to a barren valley below—I loudly proclaimed the whole chapter to any who were located in the small room. Little did I realize, at that moment, that I was speaking forth a vivid message of the dry bones restoration of Israel! When Spirit-led actions like this occur, you take note, and your memory is permanently embedded with recollections of not only the circumstances—but also the place in the Holy Writ that will influence you in time thereafter.

Upon returning to the United States, we were convinced that there was so much more to our walk of faith, and that much spiritual benefit would be derived by observing the feasts of Israel, as Margaret had done with her late husband Kim back in the 1980s. Within a few months, now 1995, we were led to a Messianic Jewish congregation. Before long, we found ourselves in the new member’s class, and we were learning some Hebrew. For a short season, our family attended both this congregation on Saturday and church on Sunday. When you believe that you have heard from the Lord, are trusting in His guidance, feeling His presence, and know that He is leading you into a deeper walk with Him—there is no turning back. And so, our family eventually found itself exclusively attending the Messianic assembly. We steadily incorporated elements of the Messianic lifestyle, such as keeping Shabbat, the appointed times, and eating Biblically kosher. We read the Torah every week, and we were attuned to some of the unique challenges of the First Century Believers. Perhaps some of you can identify with what we experienced.

A Deeper Walk

For almost two decades, we have been involved with the broad Messianic community of faith, having originally been introduced through Messianic Judaism. Despite some initially less-than-welcoming attitudes we did encounter from some Messianic Jews—wondering why a non-Jewish family like ours would be attracted to Messianic things—we have never been dissuaded from the path that the Lord has placed us upon. In fact, the more we have studied the Scriptures, researched and cross-examined various topics, and most importantly prayed for confirmation—the more involved we became with Messianic things. One of the most influential passages, for me personally, regards the prophesied “restoration of all things.” This was originally spoken by the Apostle Peter, to the crowds gathered in Jerusalem after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Shavuot/Pentecost. Such a “restoration of all things” must transpire before the return of the Messiah:

“But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, ‘Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Yeshua, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Yeshua which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all. And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Messiah would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Yeshua, the Messiah appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, “THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED [Deuteronomy 18:15-16] to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, “AND IN YOUR SEED ALL OF THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED” [Genesis 22:18; 26:4]. For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:12-26).

Passages like this one, and a deeper study of the words of the Prophets, have surely convinced me that in the Lord’s time—the full restoration of Israel as seen in words like Isaiah 43 or Ezekiel 37, will not only take place, but have even steadily started to take place. We might not know all of the specific details, but when we honestly sit down with the Word of God, and then we look out at the developments witnessed in the Messianic movement with many Jewish people coming to Yeshua and non-Jewish Believers embracing their Hebraic Roots—something big has started to happen. Eventually in the end-times, we know that the Tribulation saints will have a definite testimony of belief in the Messiah and they will keep the Torah’s commandments (Revelation 12:17; 14:12).

Ministry Work

Our family has been active participants in the Messianic movement—from our first years in Messianic Judaism starting in 1995, and later continuously being involved with various other Messianic ministries. In 2002, we started Outreach Israel Ministries, and since then we have definitely experienced and witnessed an evolution, of sorts, of the broad Messianic community of faith, somewhat up close and personal. Rather than being distant observers on the outside, we have been firsthand witnesses on the inside, to much of the positive growth. We have also had to see a great deal of the intrigue and politicking that has plagued the Messianic movement, preventing dividing walls from being broken down (cf. Ephesians 2:15).

In our experience in full time ministry, we have met and interacted with many of those who are leaders, or at least claim to be leaders, particularly within the more independent sectors of the Messianic community. Through family friends and various contacts in Messianic Judaism, we have been able to become acquainted with many of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders and voices of influence. Of course, more than anything else, as teachers and researchers, we have had to become exposed to a wide array of publications, and audio and visual media, that have directed the thoughts, ideas, theology, and spirituality of the Messianic community. Over the past number of years, it has definitely become more and more apparent to us, that Outreach Israel Ministries has had to come forth not only as a fair-minded voice of balance, but also as one which will often have to represent a third, moderate alternative on an issue or controversy—especially when religious politics takes over, and an analysis of relevant Biblical passages tends to go by the wayside.

Early along, in our family’s involvement with the Messianic movement, we discerned that the Adversary is quite aware that this is a genuine move of the Holy One of Israel. Since the enemy will definitely attempt to thwart anything that the Creator has decreed He will accomplish, it is unfortunate that there have been problematic voices arise within the Messianic world, who have done anything but give it credibility and believability. At various times, we have had to take a stand against influences that we consider to be rather “ear-tickling” (2 Timothy 4:3), which have done serious damage to undiscerning people. The different currents and eddies which have moved various Messianic Believers to-and-fro, have certainly directed us to make sure that we are always on top of the issues that matter—and that we must do our best to have a response to questions when they are asked (1 Peter 3:15-16). Suffice it to say, there is always important work to do!

Controversial Teachings

During the process we have witnessed over the years—and whether it is an evolution, a devolution, or simply a series of developments—we have had to contend with a wide array of issues and controversies present in the broad Messianic movement. These include, but are not limited to, debates involving: Israelite identity, calendar disputes, the Divine Name of God, the nature of Yeshua and His Divinity, the existence of a presumed Hebrew New Testament, entire books of the Apostolic Scriptures being disregarded as inspired, Hebrew letter pictures, a Hebrew versus Greek mindset, Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah, a One Law versus Divine Invitation model for Jewish and non-Jewish Believers obeying God, false prophecies about the onset of the Great Tribulation, polygamy, abuse of Torah scrolls, and teachers with a significant lack of formal education. Needless to say, the ability of people to come up with ways to disturb others—whether such ways originate from their own flesh or are inspired by demonic forces—is difficult to encounter. Being able to separate oneself from the emotions and rhetoric of the controversies is not always easy. This is especially true when considering the thrust of what Paul says in Philippians 4:8:

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

Would it not be wonderful if we could all just dwell on these positive things? The challenge for Bible teachers is the reality that false teaching can subtly lead people along strange paths, which might lead people to deny faith in Yeshua. This is further complicated, when one notes that even Yeshua warned His Disciples about the lack of faith apparent when He would return. In His parable about the widow who pesters the unrighteous judge for legal protection, Yeshua concluded His statements with a serious question about whether there will be any faith on Earth when He returns:

“Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, “Give me legal protection from my opponent.” For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.”’ And the Lord said, ‘Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?’” (Luke 18:1-8).

The Messiah was very concerned about the faith in Him that is required for those still present, when He will return in all His glory (1 Thessalonians 3;13; Titus 2:12-14). Yeshua knew the future, and how many will be easily turned away from following Him. In His Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua issued a warning about many of the false teachers and false prophets who would come, and how not all who would claim Him will enter into His Kingdom:

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS [Psalm 6:8]’” (Matthew 7:12-23).

In your own personal faith development, as a Messianic Believer, be sure that you are a good inspector of the fruit of various leaders, teachers, ministries, and organizations. Be careful when you listen to a voice who declares something via a creed of some sort of “restoration of Torah,” and they stay away from addressing the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). If necessary, be a bit overly-critical when you evaluate what you are told by a presumed voice of influence.

Complimenting the apparent lack of faith and the challenges of false teaching, toward the end of His ministry, Yeshua warned that there were going to be many false prophets who came in His authority: “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will mislead many” (Matthew 24:5). No one wants to be misled when it comes to spiritual things. However, because the Messianic movement is so relatively new and subject to a variety of influences, it is critical that we each discern the veracity of a teaching and the motivations of teachers.

The Apostle Peter devoted an entire chapter of his second letter, detailing some revealing attributes of false prophets and teachers. I encourage you to read this carefully, to discern whether any of your teachers have any of these negative characteristics present:

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet. These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Yeshua the Messiah, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT’ [Proverbs 26:11], and, ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Peter 2:1-22).

With these warnings issued from Yeshua the Messiah and the Apostle Peter, we should not be surprised that as the Messianic community of faith evolves, devolves, or simply develops—perhaps contingent on what sector we examine—it is generating more and more false prophets and false teachers, especially as the numbers of people entering it grows. After all, as the numbers increase, the greed and self- absorption, which are evident in the hearts of false teachers, have fertile ground to fleece the flock. While a lack of faith in Yeshua, and susceptibility to false teaching, are warned about throughout the Apostolic Writings, there is one more final challenge that needs to be addressed. This is the great falling away or apostasy, which is sadly destined to occur before Yeshua’s return:

“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

Apparently, as faith in Yeshua wanes and false teaching multiplies, there is going to be a great falling away from the faith before Yeshua returns. God forbid that today’s Messianic movement somehow contributes to apostasy from faith in the Messiah! This is a dire warning, and something that everyone should be aware of, as we each work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12).

Perseverance to the End

As we approach an uncertain future, given some of the unknowns in our ever-changing world—but most especially not fully knowing what the emerging Messianic movement will “evolve” into—be sure that you remember the times when the Lord interacted with you on a personal basis. Whether it is reliving your born again experience, remembering times when your prayers were answered, or when you received some distinct message through a dream or vision or direct word—take comfort in knowing that He has placed you here for a reason. Whether it is verses like Isaiah 43 and Ezekiel 37, which have set our family on a unique spiritual journey, leading us into the Messianic movement and into full time ministry, or simply the proclamation of John 3:16 that expresses God’s love for you in Yeshua—the key is holding on to your salvation, and making sure that you do not get swept away by the enemy’s trickery.

Like life, the Messianic community of faith is never static. Instead, just like our lives are in constant motion until the time our heart stops beating and our lungs stop breathing, we will hopefully be advancing toward union with the Holy One of Israel for eternity. Our challenge, as we aim toward that final goal, is to avoid the many deviations. We need to make sure that our commitment to the development of the Messianic movement, enables it to advance into a Messianic force, fully able and willing to accomplish the Heavenly Father’s tasks for the final hour.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter

3

[1] This article originally appeared in the February 2012 issue of Outreach Israel News.

-4-

Torah As Constitution 2002

J.K. McKee

In our generation, we have witnessed a profound growth and expansion of the Messianic movement. Not only have many Jewish people come to a saving knowledge of Yeshua the Messiah, but many non-Jewish Believers have embraced the richness of their Hebraic Roots and heritage in Israel. Many Believers are undeniably awakening to the deep truths of the Torah. Each of us must be disciplined in our Bible study as we apply the Torah’s mitzvot or commandments to our lives. We must seek to have a healthy reading of the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation, in its ancient context and setting. As we do this, issues often pop up that require a little bit of targeted attention.

One area that receives some discussion, in various parts of the Messianic movement, is whether or not the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)—which we usually refer to as the Torah—should ever be called the Law. A statement that can be heard from time to time in our Messianic faith community, is: The Torah is teaching. The Torah is not the law. It is said that Torah just means Teaching or Instruction, and should never be referred to by the term law.

We should all agree with the fact that torah must, as far as our individual selves are concerned, be viewed as personal teaching or instruction. Was it God’s intention to codify a listing of rules and regulations that His people would follow legalistically out of some kind of forced obligation? No. The essence of the New Covenant is that “I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it on their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33, NJPS; cf. Hebrews 8:10; 10:16).

However, even when we believe that the Torah is Teaching or Instruction, there is still one issue that remains: Why is the Torah frequently referred to as the Law? Concerning the definition of torah, the BDB lexicon, one of the most widely used for meanings of Hebrew words, says that torah means “direction, instruction, law,”[1] leaving some things open for discussion concerning the application of torah in theology. It references that the Hebrew word torah is derived from the root yarah, meaning “throw, shoot,” “lead, guide,” and “teach.”[2]

Torah Translated as Nomos

In the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew word torah was translated with the Greek word nomos. (Be aware of how  is pronounced properly as nŏmŏs, with a short ŏ sound. It is more common, although incorrect, to hear it pronounced with a long ō sound, although the omicron [] and not the omega [] is the vowel used.) Nomos is a term that in its strictest sense means “law,” but such law need not always be Biblical instruction. It can also be representative of extra-Biblical Jewish Talmudic rulings, Greek or Roman civil code, and can be indicative of laws of nature that govern the universe. L.A. Jervis indicates in the Dictionary of New Testament Background how “The Greek word usually rendered ‘law’ by the translators of the NT is nomos. This word meant both ‘law’ and ‘custom’ and so could refer to the laws of a society and to that society’s habits and customs.”[3] Nomos can also be used in speaking of spiritual laws, more clearly defined as spiritual constants, which may be viewed as something like the law of sin and death or the law of the spirit of life (cf. Romans 7:6; 8:2).

Many evangelical Christians’ apprehension, to following the Torah as today’s Messianics do, is based on some misunderstanding of the concept of “law.” The problem can be compounded by some Messianics who say that nomos was an improper rendering of torah, because nomos does not strictly mean “teaching” or “instruction.” Certainly, one can recognize the fact that “law” has a bad connotation among many people. But then again, being called “lawless” is not a compliment that most Christians like having directed at them.

The usage of nomos for torah dates back to three centuries before Yeshua, with the Jewish scholars who produced the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Tanach. According to tradition, seventy translators were split up in separate rooms and they each translated the entire Torah into Greek. When they compared their translations, it is said that they were all the same—and many believed that this translation was inspired of God. Whether what we now call the Septuagint is inspired, to such an extent or not, is unimportant here. What is important here is that the LXX rendered the Hebrew term torah, teaching or instruction, as nomos, or law. The usage of nomos representing the Torah of Moses was carried over into the Greek Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, which many, Messianic and Christian alike (especially me), believe is inspired of the Holy Spirit.

Was this rendering of nomos for torah a mistake? Some of today’s Messianics would brazenly say yes. Some would say that nomos brings with it the idea of strict law, rules and regulations, and it presents a God who is more concerned about strict obedience by His subjects rather than delivering loving instructions to His children. However, the historical background behind this suggests otherwise. The Encyclopaedia Judaica, under its entry for “Torah,” indicates how “The Septuagint rendered the Hebrew torah by the Greek nomos (‘law’) probably in the sense of a living network of traditions and customs of a people.” However, this same entry goes on and says, “The designation of the Torah by nomos, and by its Latin successor lex (whence, ‘the Law’), has historically given rise to the sad misunderstanding that Torah means legalism.”[4] Jewish Bible scholar Pamela Eisenbaum further summarizes,

“That Greek-speaking Jews chose to use nomos as the equivalent for Torah should not be taken as an indication of a lack of spiritual fervor or that Jews were becoming more ‘legalistic’ in the postbiblical period. It is likely that Hellenistic Jews found nomos the most appropriate or natural equivalent because it expressed a quality highly valued throughout the Mediterranean at the time. Both the Greeks and the Romans placed a very high value on ancestral tradition and the rule of law. That Jews described Torah as an ancient constitution, which they cherished, carefully preserved and protected, and to which they strictly adhered, indicates they were presenting themselves as a society that was credible and comprehensible to Greek and Roman rulers, elites, and intellectuals. Ancient Jewish writers also portrayed Torah not just as one particular constitution, but as one founded on universal principles and in which the noblest ideals of human communal life are embodied. Torah contains the ultimate system of morals and values because its origin is divine; it was given to the ancient Israelites by God via Moses.”[5]

The term “law” has never had a negative connotation within Judaism. While the terms “Torah” or “Teaching” may be preferable or more commonplace, you will find the term “law” used in Jewish translations of the Tanach, as well as many Jewish commentaries.

Torah As Constitution

Placing the Septuagint’s usage of nomos for torah, in an ancient historical setting is important, as the Greek LXX would be used to spread a message about the Holy One of Israel to many people in the Greek-speaking world, before the arrival of the Messiah. With the Tanach transcribed into Greek, many Greeks and Romans came to a knowledge of the One True God, and it paved the way for the spread of the gospel message. This is self-evident by the fact that there were many Greek proselytes and God-fearers in the Jewish synagogues in the Mediterranean basin, as witnessed throughout the Book of Acts.

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint, undoubtedly wanted to show the pagan Greeks the awesomeness of the God of Israel and of His Torah. In rendering the Hebrew term torah by the Greek term nomos, they used a word that many of the Greeks were highly respectful of. The five books of Moses composed the nomos of Israel, the living, breathing collection of principles, instructions, and directions for how to conduct oneself and one’s community properly—in obedience to the Creator God.

Ancient Greece itself was made up of various city-states, each one known as a polis. Each polis had an official known as a nomothetēs or a “lawgiver,”[6] whose job it was to transcribe and enforce the nomos or “law” of that city-state. Historian Oswyn Murray comments, “The figure of the lawgiver (nomothetēs) is a response to this double need to curb the power of the aristocracy and maintain the force of customary law. The lawgiver was chosen from among the class of experts, and could therefore be given absolute power to establish a written code.”[7] The nomos of the Greek city-state would not at all be “rules and regulations” to be rigidly mandated onto people, but would rather compose the principles that would govern the city, establish an identity for the people, and be concerned with matters of justice. The nomos would be the constitution. The Vine lexicon indicates that “nomos became the established name for ‘law’ as decreed by a state and set up as the standard for the administration of justice.”[8] The nomos would help to establish the government, which would in turn be able to provide for the order and well-being of the people.

In the Apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees, a related term to nomos, nomimos, “conformable to custom, usage, or law, customary, prescriptive, established, lawful, rightful” (LS),[9] is used in a depiction of some of the terrible things that occurred during the crisis that ensued, as the identity of the Jewish people was attacked and subverted:

“And the royal privileges granted special favour to the Jews by the means of John the father of Eupolemus, who went ambassador to Rome for amity and aid, he took away; and putting down the governments [politeias] which were according to the law [nomimous], he brought up new customs against the law” (2 Maccabees 4:11, LXE).

This chapter of 2 Maccabees tells us that a Jewish leader named Jason (2 Maccabees 4:10) was responsible for bringing in specific Greek customs and cultural practices (2 Maccabees 4:12-15), which later resulted in sacrifices to pagan gods and apostasy. The source text itself of 2 Maccabees 4:11 indicates something very interesting. 2 Maccabees 4:11 tells us that Jason put down the Biblically mandated form of government derived from God’s Law, and brought in anti-Torah practices. The RSV translates it with, “he destroyed the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs contrary to the law.”

The Greek term nomos or its cognates, do not communicate any negative idea. Nomos, representative of God’s Torah, is designed to communicate the idea of government, of constitution. Such a constitutional perspective, of the Torah or Law of Moses, was something that was surely opposed by the Syrian-Greeks during the Maccabean crisis of the Second Century B.C.E. Yet, the very promise indicated in 2 Maccabees 2:18 is, “as he promised through the law [dia tou nomou]. For we have hope in God that he will soon have mercy upon us and will gather us from everywhere under heaven into his holy place, for he has rescued us from great evils and has purified the place” (RSV). Israel will one day be restored, as is promised in His Law.

How important is it to view the Torah as the nomos/constitution of God’s people? Recognizing the association of nomimos with politeia in 2 Maccabees 4:11 is useful, because of another important location where politeia appears. In Ephesians 2:12 the Apostle Paul writes the non-Jews in Asia Minor, that prior to saving faith, that they “at that time [were] separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” The CJB renders this admonition with, “You were estranged from the national life of Isra’el.” Prior to knowing Israel’s Messiah, they were not a part of tēs politeias tou Israēl. The term politeia not only means “the right to be a member of a sociopolitical entity, citizenship,” but also “behavior in accordance with standards expected of a respectable citizen, way of life, conduct” (BDAG).[10] Attaining citizenship within the Kingdom of Israel via Messiah faith is not enough; it must be followed by the appropriate conduct which responsible citizens are expected to demonstrate.[11]

Only in post-Apostolic Christianity will you really find the idea that “law” was apparently something that was bad, such as in the context of the Torah being “rules and regulations” designed to bring Ancient Israel into (hopeless) bondage. But even the idea of the Torah being instructions or directions, or more specifically instructives or directives, can be viewed in a negative light. The same is also true with law. It can be viewed as “rules and regulations,” or it can be viewed as constitution: the ruling precepts of a government designed to bring justice to a people or society.

It was never the intention of the Jewish translators of the Septuagint to render torah as nomos, so as to imply that the Torah should be viewed as burdensome regulations and dictates. Rather, it was probably their intention that the Torah should be viewed as the constitutional law of the community of Israel—something to be looked at in a very positive sense. All Messianic Believers today, when encountering the term “law” in their English Bibles, need to similarly adopt the perspective that the Torah serves as the constitution of God’s people Israel. Such Instruction is intended to one day herald a complete reign of global peace, with the Messiah enthroned as King over Planet Earth (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4).

Responsibly Approaching the Usage of “Law”

For a variety of reasons, not all of today’s Messianic Believers approach the Greek term nomos from the perspective of torah serving as the constitution of God’s people. On the contrary, some Messianics have been told to approach the term “law” with a great deal of negativity, with a few even taking their various English Bible versions and crossing out the term “law,” and replacing it with “Torah.” But this is very ill-advised. Due to the varied usages of the term nomos in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, it would be irresponsible of any Messianic person to simply cross out the word “law” in their New Testament translation and write in “Torah.” This can actually create more problems than offer solutions, because sometimes nomos does not refer to the Torah of Moses. Context always determines how nomos is to be properly applied.

Believe it or not, today’s Messianic Believers also need to be a bit more conscious of how they use a term like torah, specifically “Torah” without the definite article “the.” In much of contemporary Judaism, torah does not always refer to the five books of Moses, but also is intended to include the oral instruction of the Jewish Sages as principally seen in literature like the Mishnah or Talmud. This necessarily requires today’s Messianic Believers, who do not consider the Oral Torah to have Divine inspiration and authority, to not exclusively use a term like torah in teaching and conversation, and employ a selection of valid synonyms.

While it is likely that today’s Messianic movement, in describing the instruction of the five books of Moses, will use the term torah the most, we should not at all be fearful of also speaking of “the Law of Moses.” One certainly needs to have a comfort level in reading and using the term “law” for the Torah, if you hope to be able to reasonably engage with Jewish and Christian Bible scholarship. Likewise, we should also be able to use terms like Chumash or Pentateuch, which simply mean “book of five.”

With my various writings, you will encounter a variety of terms used to describe torah. This includes the rather common terms: the Torah (of Moses), the Law (of Moses), as well as the Pentateuch (the five books of Genesis-Deuteronomy). Another description I have learned to employ is taken directly from John Goldingay’s Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, where he has been most helpful by frequently using the terminology: Moses’ Teaching.[12] This is a rather useful and valid term to use for English speakers, for whom only having to use the labels Torah and/or Law can get a little tedious and tiresome at times.

I personally prefer to alternate between Torah, the Law, Moses’ Teaching, and Pentateuch. Regardless of which is used, I am most concerned that today’s Messianic Believers are allowing themselves to be guided, informed, and molded by the supernatural nature of God’s commandments. Such Instruction is to serve as the constitution of the Kingdom of God, and is to teach us about the righteousness and holiness of our Creator.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 4

[1]

BDB, 435; cf. HALOT, 2:1710-1712; CHALOT, 388.

[2] Ibid., 434.

[3] L.A. Jervis, “Law/Nomos in the Greco-Roman World,” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 632.

[4] Louis Isaac Rabinowtiz, “Torah,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica. MS Windows 9x. Brooklyn: Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd, 1997.

[5] Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 83.

[6] Cf. James 4:12.

[7] Oswyn Murray, Ancient Greece, second edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp 181-182.

[8] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 354.

[9] LS, 534.

[10] Frederick William Danker, ed., et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 845.

[11] For a further discussion on Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6, consult the publication Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel?, as well as the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic, both by J.K. McKee.

[12] Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, pp 27, 29.

-5-

MICAH 4:1-3; ISAIAH 2:2-4

"THE TORAH WILL GO FORTH FROM ZION" 2010

ki m’Tzion teitzei Torah u’devar-ADONAI m’Yerushalayim

J.K. McKee

Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 both contain a very important prophecy, speaking of the significant influence of Israel in the “end-times,” and how the nations are to be instructed from God Himself in the ways of peace.[1] Both of these passages feature prominently within the Jewish liturgical tradition, but they have had significantly more influence in motivating faithful Jews and Christians to be active in social justice, humanitarian efforts, and in helping to foster world peace. Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 are very well known to Jewish and Christian philosophy, even though in today’s Messianic community these passages are probably not probed as much as they should be for their theological, spiritual, and missional significance. This prophecy, delivered via two prophets, anticipates great changes that will affect the entire world, directly involving God’s Torah.

Not enough of today’s Christian laypeople—or even various Messianics—are aware of the profound message that Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 communicate (as opposed to theologians and Bible teachers). Too frequently, our level of engagement with these verses is just limited to the words of various praise songs. In some cases, in hearing about how God’s Word will go forth from Zion, Christians will associate it with the proclamation of the gospel of salvation in Yeshua—yet some key details of what this involves are noticeably left out. This prophecy speaks to the need for the nations to be instructed from the Law of God, specifically so that conflicts can be moderated and that His shalom will prevail. Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 have a great deal of importance for today’s Messianic movement, especially in terms of the relevance or non-relevance of the Torah for non-Jewish Believers. With some of the discussions witnessed as to whether non-Jews should be Torah observant—or whether following the Torah is only for Jews—it is quite surprising that this prophecy has not been given a great deal of attention.

Because the oracle of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 is essentially the same, there is understandably discussion over where it would have first appeared. Did it (1) first appear in Isaiah, and then Micah, or (2) first appear in Micah, and then Isaiah? Did (3) either Isaiah and Micah both import this word separately from a third party source? Or, (4) did a redactor(s) edit this prophetic word into the final textual form of both the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Micah, because he found it consistent with the two Prophets’ overall message? There might not be a definite answer agreed upon among scholars, but no Bible reader can fail to notice how this prophecy appears in two locations in the Tanach, intensifying its significance.

Any examination of both Micah and Isaiah commentaries on this passage will see a variety of opinions and options presented, as to where this prophetic oracle originated. Walter Kaiser does not try to be dogmatic at all, simply noting that the prophetic ministries of both Micah and Isaiah were “at most twenty to forty years apart,”[2] and how their messages could easily have overlapped. While an appropriate thought, many interpreters think that the prophetic word of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 somehow originated separately from both Prophets, and then via some means—either the Prophets themselves or a redactor of their materials—made it into the Books of Micah and Isaiah. Brevard S. Childs summarizes,

“It is possible that the passage predated both prophets and was accommodated by each collection in a slightly different form. Although the redactional age of the composition remains contested, the material of the passage is clearly ancient, even with mythopoetic roots, which has been encompassed with old Hebrew pilgrimage traditions.”[3]

While it is entirely possible that via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both Micah and Isaiah prophesied the same message as witnessed in Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4, it is most inviting to think that both Prophets appropriated some kind of previous composition into their messages. It is reasonable for us to think that both Micah and Isaiah employed some kind of a popular hymn or a well known poem used in the Temple worship of Israel, no different than how a pastor today might quote pieces from a hymn like Amazing Grace, although without having to state it as so. J. Alec Motyer thinks, “the fact that the poem is found in two prophets indicates its popular currency.”[4] What both of these Prophets referred to must have been a rather common expectation for some religious sectors within Ancient Israel, known and believed by many of the common people as well, and then possibly expanded as the Lord moved upon Micah and Isaiah. In the estimation of John N. Oswalt,

“The majority of recent scholars, in the light of what is now believed about oral tradition and literary formation, doubt if either author copied from the other. It is more likely that the saying, certainly one of remarkable beauty and force...had become a common possession of the several priestly and prophetic communities within the nation and that one or both of these prophets drew it from that common heritage.”[5]

If the oracle seen in Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 originated from within the liturgy of Temple worship, can we actually determine the specific sources from which it was derived? Until Biblical archaeologists discover a lost inscription with this prophetic word, or perhaps some kind of forgotten collection of period songs and poems, the main material we have to consider is witnessed in the Tanach Scriptures. Regular pilgrimages to the appointed place in Jerusalem are commanded in the Torah (Exodus 12:17; 26:28; Leviticus 23:41-44), something which the nations surely do (Micah 4:2a; Isaiah 2:3a). The Psalmist expresses great joy at being in the presence of the Lord in His House (Psalm 84), and the nations declare how they will be going to the House of the Lord (Micah 4:2b; Isaiah 2:3b). Most importantly, the Psalmist declares how God is a Protector who delights in peace (Psalms 120-122), and the expectation is that as the nations are taught by God, their weapons of war will be turned into objects of peace (Micah 4:3; Isaiah 2:4).

The prophetic ministries of both Micah and Isaiah were quite close, and conservatives will agree that they occurred sometime in the 700s B.C.E., in conjunction with the pressing threat from Assyria on the Divided Kingdom. The Book of Isaiah is unique in that it specifically records how Isaiah’s prophetic service began in the year of King Uzziah’s death (Isaiah 6:1), 740 B.C.E., and then continued on to at least the death of Sennacherib of Assyria (Isaiah 37:38), 681 B.C.E. Three kings of Judah reigned during the service of Micah, as recorded in Micah 1:1: Jotham (750-732 B.C.E.), Ahaz (732-716 B.C.E.), and Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.E).[6] While the prophetic ministries of both Isaiah and Micah overlapped, Micah probably began his service before Isaiah, and so for that reason we will be examining Micah 4:1-3 before Isaiah 2:2-4.

Both Micah and Isaiah prophesied in the time frame of the mid-Eighth to early-Seventh Centuries B.C.E.—sometime before and after the conquering of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria. But with the prophecy looking sometime into the future, does this even matter? By the time Isaiah delivered his prophecies, it is notable to recognize that the Southern Kingdom of Judah would have been the primary audience.[7] But, if this oracle originated within Israel’s Temple worship and/or Psalm traditions, then even with Isaiah’s proclamation of this word taking on some different dimensions to a Southern Kingdom without a Northern Kingdom widely present, this message would still affect all of Israel in the future, as the people will be gathered back together and their restoration will have a resonating impact on the world at large. It is something that surely, in some way or another, we are being affected by today via the growth and expansion of the Messianic movement.

This paper will consider the significance of both Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4, by examining both the text and the thoughts of a variety of Micah and Isaiah commentators. How important is this oracle within the scope of events to occur in salvation history? What does it teach us about the role of the Torah? Would the Apostles have considered this prophecy important in regard to the expansion of the gospel and the instruction of the non-Jewish Believers in the First Century? How important will properly understanding and applying both Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 be for the future development of the Messianic community?

Some of the thoughts we will be examining for both Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 will overlap, but it will be important to analyze both passages and the array of suggestions offered by interpreters. This single prophecy, although delivered by two Prophets of God, can aid all of us in our service for Him today. We have a responsibility to make sure that we are providing for a venue of peace, where people can understand the supernatural nature of the Torah and its ability to instruct men and women in the ways of holiness.

Micah 4:1-3

“And it will come about in the last days that the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, ‘Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths.’ For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.”

Within the Book of Micah, this prophetic word appears among a series of messages that alternate between being either positive or negative about the future of Israel. Preceding in Micah 3:9-12 is a rather negative word about how “Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins,” concerning the imminent future for Micah’s audience. Micah 4:1-5 then regards the more distant future for Israel, including some hope about how “the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains.” Yet, the pattern alternates again in Micah 4:10 with a mention of Babylon, and how the daughter of Zion will have to go there in exile. Later in Micah 5:5 a reference is made to Assyria invading the Land of Israel.

Because of the specific mention of both Babylon and Assyria, liberal theologians will sometimes date the composition of the Book of Micah to the exilic or post-exilic period, denying the principle of predictive prophecy. Of course, of notable interest to any Bible reader is why Micah 4:1-3 appears in a somewhat disjointed section that alternates between negative words of judgment and positive words that promise restoration. Either a redactor of Micah’s prophecies has simply strewn different sources together and failed to really organize them, or what is seen in the Book of Micah are firsthand prophetic oracles that were delivered orally and then transcribed more-or-less the way that the Prophet originally spoke them. In the view of S. Goldman, “the spoken word permits of abrupt transitions more readily than does the written word; and a change of tone, expression or gesture may have made the transitions seem more natural to Micah’s listeners than to his readers.”[8] The important point which is made throughout Micah, even though there is an alternation between positive and negative words, is that God will be faithful to save Israel and bring them back to fruition.

The time that Israel will be restored to its fullness will be b’acharit ha’yamim or “in the last days” (Micah 4:1a), meaning for Micah’s audience “When present days are past” (NICOT).[9] It is rightly concluded that these last days or end-times are the Messianic Age (cf. Daniel 12:4; Hosea 3:5). At this future point in history the Lord’s House will become rosh he’harim, or “chief among the mountains” (Micah 4:1b, NIV), something which is to stand in contrast to what it has been in the past (cf. Micah 3:9, 11). Zion becoming chief or preeminent among the peaks of the Earth will signify great significance and importance, as past misfortunes are reversed. Jerusalem will become the focal point of all humanity, although as Goldman states, “In a figurative, not a physical, sense; Zion will be the religious metropolis of the world, the focus of men’s spiritual desires.”[10] He may simply want to read the prophecy as meaning that beyond people streaming to Zion (Micah 4:1c), how Zion will have a worldwide effect without people always having to go there. As Psalm 48:8 exclaims, “As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of hosts, in the city of our God; God will establish her forever.” As people stream to Zion, then the fame of the city will spread.

It is important for us to realize how authority in the Ancient Near East was often associated with hills and mountains, in particular how high places were sites for idolatry (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 23:3; 18:4). Yet, it is also true that Abraham sacrificed Isaac on a mountain (Genesis 22:2), Moses received the Ten Commandments on a mountain (Exodus 19:16), and the city of Jerusalem was located on a hill. Within the Tanach, God’s power is often expressed in terms of His authority over mountains (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:12; Nahum 1:5). God’s supremacy over nations and principalities can be portrayed in terms of His ownership of the mountains as Creator, seen in Psalm 68:15: “A mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan; a mountain of many peaks is the mountain of Bashan.”

While figuratively speaking, it is easy to see how Zion “will be raised above the hills” (Micah 4:1c) regards the city of Jerusalem taking on new prominence, this could still very well represent the enlarging of Jerusalem to new physical heights. It is frequently thought that in conjunction with the Second Coming of Yeshua that there will be such seismic changes that the city of Jerusalem will be uplifted above its current elevation of 2,500 feet above sea level (cf. Zechariah 14:9-10).[11] At the same time, an interpreter like Daniel J. Simundson prefers to look at the elevating of Zion as only being an eschatological metaphor:

“Do mountains grow bigger? Hyperbolic language like this gives a kind of eschatological, ‘end of the world’ feel to this passage, especially if one is prone to think of it literally and not as a metaphor for the renewed and increased authority of the city and its Temple.”[12]

Regardless of which position one takes—whether Zion is elevated in prominence and in physicality, or just in prominence—an era of great significance for Jerusalem will be inaugurated. It is declared v’naharu alayv amim, “Peoples shall come streaming to it” (Micah 4:1c, NEB). This signifies Jerusalem having more significance than just being a place for Judah and Israel to congregate, worshipping the Lord. It will be a place everyone will look to, worshipping the Lord. Ralph L. Smith describes, “Rather than [just] being the worship center for the tribes of Israel the renewed Jerusalem will be the worship center for all people,” further stating how “All nations will make pilgrimages to Zion to learn the law of Yahweh and to walk in his ways.”[13]

With Jerusalem established as the chief center for the worship of God and instruction, there is a stirring in the hearts and minds of goyim rabim or “many nations.” They say to themselves, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob” (Micah 4:2a). And they do not only have an interest in worshipping the Lord, either. The nations say, “He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths” (Micah 4:2b, NIV), paraphrased by Allen as, “We want him to instruct us in his way of life, we want to travel his road” (NICOT).[14] Both Jewish and Christian interpreters have identified the “He” as being the Messiah,[15] who will be responsible for ruling the Earth.[16]

With the nations intending to go to Zion, the narration of the prophecy makes the key statement ki m’Tzion teitzei Torah u’devar-ADONAI m’Yerushalayim, “for Tora shall go forth from Ziyyon, and the word of the LORD from Yerushalayim” (Micah 4:2c, JBK). While most translations will render Micah 4:2 with “for...,” it is notable to be aware of how the Hebrew ki can possibly be rendered as “because” (CHALOT).[17] While the nations purpose in their hearts to go to Zion to learn, at the same time this is accompanied by the proclamation of torah and devar-ADONAI. But do the nations purpose to go to Zion, and then as a result are instructed—or is the instruction declared, and then the nations decide to go hear more? Probably, a bit of both is intended, as God’s Word goes forth into the world, and then the desire for further teaching is inquired. The verb yatza, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice) simply means “go or come out” (BDB),[18] rendered in the Keter Crown Bible as “emanate.” The point to be recognized is that the nations, and not just Israel proper, will benefit from being instructed in God’s Torah.

And the benefits of being instructed from God’s Torah are quite good, in fact! It is stated how the Messiah “will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations” (Micah 4:3a). This righteous judgment over the nations—l’goyim atzumim ad-rachoq, “for strong nations far and wide” (Micah 4:3a, NIV) actually—will serve to establish how His Torah really is proper for jurisprudence when used according to its original intention. Not only will the nations at large finally be able to be blessed by God’s Law, but the previous social circumstances to which Micah declared this word in Ancient Israel will be gone. Allen comments, “How fitting that Jerusalem should become renowned for justice after the travesty that Micah had known within the contemporary courts! No more bribery, no more fixed verdicts; men could be sure of finding justice.”[19]

The kinds of rulings that are to be made from a basis of Torah jurisprudence do not just concern how people are to relate to one another on either a familial or community basis. The second half of Micah 4:3 declares, “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (NIV). Rather than being instructed or taught (Heb. lamad) in the ways of war, the nations will learn of peace from the Law of God—and the weapons of war will be worthless for fighting. They will instead find a more constructive and beneficial use. An era will emerge where Psalm 119:165 will be realized: “Those who love Your law have great peace [shalom rav], and nothing causes them to stumble.”

No theologian or Bible teacher can express any kind of dismay at the thought of all nations being brought to the capital of God’s Kingdom, and being instructed on how to stop their continual warfare. On the contrary, being brought to God’s House—“I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the LORD’” (Psalm 122:1)—and being taught from Him on how to see universal shalom established, is quite good. Bruce Waltke indicates how in Micah 4:1-3 we see a combination of elements all brought together: “Moses arranged for Israel to make three annual pilgrimages to the central sanctuary, and David with his psalms provided a libretto to accompany their worship [cf. Psalm 122:4]. Micah enlarged it to include the nations.”[20]

Any reader or interpreter of Micah 4:2 has to acknowledge how serious it is to have God’s Torah go forth from Zion. As the nations inquire, “That He may teach us about His ways,” the verb yara, primarily meaning to “throw, shoot,” but also “direct, teach, instruct” (BDB),[21] is employed—undeniably related to the noun torah, representing God’s Law. The Torah will be taught to the nations from Zion, and it will enact a positive change within them. The following are a few valuable remarks made by Micah commentators:

•      Thomas E. McComiskey: “Micah saw a change in the hearts of all peoples at this time when the law of the Lord would be received universally rather than by Israel and Judah alone.”[22]

•      Walter Kaiser: “Imagine the tôrâh as the featured attraction at the house of God for all the nations of the earth in that coming day of the Lord!”[23]

•      Gary V. Smith: “The purpose for coming to Jerusalem is not just to see the exalted mountain or the temple, but to hear the words of God, to be taught his ways, and to understand the ‘law’ (torah) from God himself. God’s ways will describe how he acts and reflect who he is. His words contain his spoken will, which reveals his glorious wisdom, and his instructions direct people to walk in godly ways.”[24]

The scene, of the nations going to Zion to be taught from God’s Torah, can definitely be compared to the giving of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34—and how being forgiven and cleansed from sin, God’s Torah is to be supernaturally transcribed upon the heart.[25] Many Christian interpreters of Micah 4:2 (Old Testament theologians, specifically) have understandably associated the going forth of God’s Word or devar with the gospel message of salvation—something to be connected to the going forth of God’s Law as His standard for proper living. James Limburg’s thoughts are well taken:

“This dimension of the vision...comes to expression in Acts 1:8, which announces the program for the earliest Christian mission. The Book of Acts tells how that program is carried out, reporting the spread of the good news from Jerusalem ‘to the end of the earth.’ Thus for the Christian, the ‘latter days’ announced in the prophetic vision have already begun. The word of the Lord, the Torah, has been going out from Jerusalem, though the task of bringing it to all nations is not yet complete.”[26]

The term shalom is missing from the prophetic word of Micah 4:1-3, but the concept is doubtlessly present. When the nations are instructed from God’s Torah, all warfare ceases. But it is surely not enough for us to limit this peace to the eirēnē of classical literature. With warfare ceasing via the declaration of God’s Word (gospel) and Law (instruction), those from the nations get transformed. Allen comments that “God was not to leave his enemies in the dust but would transmute their lust for war and guide their misguided energies to better ends.”[27] G.V. Smith further indicates, “Weapons of war and death will be destroyed and transformed into instruments of agriculture, which will preserve life.”[28] In the eschaton, a more agrarian and simple life will be witnessed, with a God-provided peace and security for all:

“Each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken” (Micah 4:4).

With all people having been instructed from the Lord and from His Law, people will no longer fight to exploit one another—even for basic food staples. The future Messianic era is one which we should all eagerly anticipate, in Goldman’s view, being “An idyllic picture of the blessings of peace as affecting the individual man and woman, whose well-being is in the ultimate measure of the value of a social or political system”[29] only provided by God.

Isaiah 2:2-4

“Now it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.’ For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.”

When one compares Isaiah 2:2-4 to Micah 4:1-3, these texts are largely identical. The prophecy as seen here is notably prefaced by, “The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:1), a significant claim that this is a supernatural revelation delivered via the Prophet Isaiah. This should not discount a previous usage of the same oracle by the Prophet Micah, nor that this was likely in common knowledge in the Temple worship or poetry of Israel. What this should do is point out how this is credited to be a genuine, prophetic, pre-exilic expectation—and not the reflection of a later editor or redactor of Isaiah’s prophecies. John D.W. Watts confirms, “what is more important in the book of Isaiah is the claim that this view of Zion’s future...actually belongs to Isaiah of eighth-century Jerusalem. It was not an invention of convenience by the post-exilic community.”[30]

No different than in Micah 4:1-3, Isaiah 2:2-4 is given within the view of Israel being restored to a position of prominence and respect in the world, and this will have a significantly positive resonating effect on humanity. The nations will come to Zion to have their disputes mediated, and the Lord will use His Torah to see that peace is enacted. Later questions posed in the Apostolic Scriptures, such as whether or not the nations of the Earth are somehow made a part of Israel’s polity by acknowledging the Messiah (i.e., Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-12; 3:6), are not specifically asked here, even though there might be some hints. The principal issue is how the Torah brings about world peace and security by the Messiah’s reign. Obviously, without shalom present, questions about how people from the nations are to relate to, with, among, or as a part of Israel—cannot really be answered.

The expectation as declared by Isaiah is to take place b’acharit ha’yamim or “in the last days.” The prophecy will manifest itself sometime in the future from the point of Isaiah’s delivery in the Eighth Century B.C.E. For those who hold to a pre-millennial eschatology, Isaiah 2:2-4 is something to be fully realized in the Millennium. But the issue can be raised whether “in the last days” involves any kind of partial fulfillment or experience of what Isaiah 2:2-4 envisions, in the lives of God’s people, before the complete manifestation of the Messianic Kingdom. With certain futuristic elements to be realized, Oswalt suggests that b’acharit ha’yamim be better understood as “in the afterward of those days,” describing how “The Hebrews did not face the future as we do. Rather they faced the past and backed into the future. So the past was before them and the future behind them.”[31] The point made is that “the last days” cannot be limited to just any future Millennium, and how this prophecy (among others seen in the Tanach) would have begun experiencing fulfillment at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Shavuot/Pentecost.[32]

The declaration is made nakon yih’yeh har beit-ADONAI b’rosh he’harim, “The Mount of the LORD's House shall stand firm above the mountains” (Isaiah 4:2b, NJPS). In attaining such a high stature, “it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations [kol-ha’goyim] will stream to it” (Isaiah 4:2c, NJPS). While we should probably expect that the establishing or raising up of the House of the Lord involves some physical upheavals, most important to be aware of is how His authority over mountains concerned some common Ancient Near Eastern concepts about the gods being associated with different abodes on mountains. Childs describes, “The application of the ancient, Canaanite mythopoetic imagery of Zion being transformed into the highest of all mountains reflects the theme of a new creation...”[33] Barry G. Webb further points out how,

“Mountains played an important part in the religions of Israel’s neighbours. They were the points where heaven and earth were thought to meet and were therefore highly favoured as sites for altars and temples. The Canaanites worshipped their gods at the ‘high places’, and these became a snare to the Israelites. Even when such high places were removed from within Israel’s borders in times of religious reform, the surrounding nations continued to worship their gods on their holy mountains.”[34]

Rather than one of the gods of the Canaanites having some regional or parochial appeal to only one group of people adjacent to a high point—the message of this prophecy is that God’s mountain is the highest of all points, and that He has supreme authority as Creator. Isaiah 2:2-4, in communicating a welcoming message to all nations to come to Zion, deliberately subverts some ANE views of gods on their own mountains ruling over a small fraction of humanity. The One God of Israel on Mount Zion possesses complete dominion over all of the mountains—and whatever demonic principalities dwell on them—and He desires all people to come to a knowledge of His goodness and love. A commentator like Gene M. Tucker, of course, has to note how “Zion was not even the highest peak in the immediate neighborhood.”[35] Yet, given the supreme power of the Lord (i.e., Psalm 46:8-9) and the reality of Yeshua’s Second Coming—Zion will indeed one day be the highest peak in more than just preeminence.

The supremacy, and indeed superiority, of Israel’s God over the regional gods of Canaan (or any other deity of the ancient world), is seen in what coming to Zion involves. Realizing how great the God of Israel is, “many peoples” or amim rabim will inquire and say, “Come, Let us go up to the Mount of the LORD, to the House of the God of Jacob; that He may instruct us in His ways, and that we may walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2:3a, NJPS). What they want is clear: “There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths” (Isaiah 2:3b, NLT). And, the reason all of this will occur is restated by Isaiah: ki m’Tzion teitzei Torah u’devar-ADONAI m’Yerushalayim, “For from Zion will the Torah come forth, and the word of HASHEM from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3c, ATS).

Isaiah 2:3 notably includes a usage of two important Hebrew verbs. Yara is used for “teach,” and halak is used for “walk.” It is possible to stretch Isaiah 2:3b a bit and think of it in terms of the nations being taught and instructed from the Torah, and the Lord Himself establishing proper halachah for them in how to live and prosper. The Message actually tries to capture this, rendering Isaiah 2:3b with “He'll show us the way he works so we can live the way we're made”—meaning that by being instructed by the Lord, all people can live properly as human beings made special by Him, reflecting His image and good intention.

How would an Eighth Century B.C.E. audience from Ancient Israel or Judah have taken this message—that the nations will actually come to Zion and be instructed from Moses’ Teaching? Would they have rejoiced in hearing that the world at large would come to a knowledge of the One God of Creation, and follow Him? Or, would they be spiteful of it? Watts observes, “His [God’s] attraction for nations and peoples is so great that they will ‘flow’ uphill to the summit of the mountains and learn from ‘the God of Jacob’ the lessons to which Israel and Judah turned deaf ears.”[36] By the time the Messianic era dawns, it is surely anticipated that Israel and Judah’s sins will be cleansed and the Torah transcribed upon their hearts as a part of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27). Yet, the restoration of Israel involves the whole world and all nations, and as Motyer puts it, “Their coming transcends nationalism: they acknowledge the God of a single nation...They are moved by desire...They also come responsively.”[37] So, within Isaiah 2:2-4 there might be just a bit of rebuke witnessed to the generation to whom the Prophet originally delivered this message—given a widescale failure to obey the Lord and worship Him exclusively.

God’s purpose in establishing His mountain as the chief of all points on Planet Earth is not only so that all nations will hear of Him and come streaming toward Him—but is critical to establish His exclusivity as the source of salvation. Even when read from a vantage point of realized eschatology, where the core emphasis of this prophecy is experienced today among men and women who have received Yeshua as Savior—comes the realization that redemption only comes through Israel’s Messiah. All the high points of Canaan’s gods, or even the gods of Greece on Mount Olympus, have nothing to offer humanity when compared to the Lord Yeshua who was sacrificed so that all might be saved. Oswalt excellently comments, “The emphatic position of Zion here stresses the fact that there are not many ways to heaven. There is one way: by means of truth which has been mediated through the historical experience of the people whose life has come to be centered upon Jerusalem...Jerusalem has become a symbol of God’s self-revelation through history.”[38]

The main result of the Torah going forth to the nations will be the complete abolition of warfare, something that the gods of Canaan could certainly never provide. The Messiah “will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples” (Isaiah 2:4a, NIV). In turn, the world “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war” (Isaiah 2:4b). The statement that really strikes deep into the heart of anyone who reads this is v’lo-yil’medo ‘od milchamah, “they will no longer study warfare” (Isaiah 2:4b, ATS).

Those who have acknowledged Yeshua as Messiah and Lord have already been restored to right relationship with the Father, and no longer have to war within themselves (cf. Romans 7:16-25) or with others in the community of faith. Yet, we also affirm that even though His cross has cleared us of our sins, we still await His return and all things being subjected to Him (Hebrews 10:12-13). When Yeshua returns, there will be a complete abolition of warfare on Planet Earth. Tucker reminds us how, “Swords and spears are relatively cheap today, but in antiquity their production divested significant resources.”[39]

A modern-day equivalent of what is to be expected in the weapons of warfare being turned into weapons of peace would somehow be turning military trucks, tanks, and aircraft into farming equipment. Trucks transporting troops for battle will instead move agricultural produce and animals to and from market. Tanks designed to unleash destruction will be converted to plow fields and landscapes for cultivation. Aircraft which would bomb villages and cities will be used to help water and fertilize fields. Helicopters will carry field workers to and fro, instead of carrying the wounded to hospital.

In the Messianic Age, with war largely going to be a thing of the past—why would anybody need to look to Zion to be taught from the Torah? This is basically, after all, what many of today’s theologians advocate; they claim that following the Torah was only for a previous era, and has no continuation in the post-resurrection time following Christ’s crucifixion. Oswalt, an Old Testament theologian, actually has a very important answer to why being taught in God’s Instruction is vital—even in this post-resurrection time—especially as it concerns the personal and national shalom Isaiah 2:2-5 envisions. He observes,

“Persons who have learned such truths and are walking in them (v. 3) can show šalôm, or ‘well-being,’ and when two persons are walking in this way they can know such šalôm together because both can know that their interests are being cared for by God, and both know that the other will submit his or her needs to God rather than attempt to satisfy them by force (John 14:27). When these principles are extended to the nations, world peace can result. However, the thought of producing peace on any other ground is hollow (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). Until persons and nations have come to God to learn his ways and walk in them, peace is an allusion”[40] (emphasis mine).

Even in a post-resurrection era where the capital punishment of the Torah has been absorbed in Yeshua’s sacrifice (Colossians 2:14) and some changes are resultant via His fulfillment of the Torah (cf. Matthew 5:17), totally dismissing Moses’ Teaching as having no relevance for the lives of Messiah followers is most ill-advised and problematic. The declaration of this prophetic oracle is clear that only when the nations hear and obey God’s holy Law will worldwide shalom manifest. And surely, if hearing from the Torah can cause weapons of war to be changed into instruments of peace—what kind of positive effect can heeding the Torah enact within individuals, who often just want to live happy and productive lives in the Lord?

Just “Instruction”?

Both Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 anticipate how the nations are to be brought to Zion to be taught from God’s Torah. It is perfectly valid, as witnessed in both the NJPS and HCSB renderings, to translate torah as “instruction” in these verses. The Torah is God’s Teaching or Instruction. Some interpreters, though, want to skew the expectation that the nations will be taught from the Law of Moses, and so they have to employ tactics whereby some other “torah” than the Torah is what goes forth to inaugurate global peace. The dispensational Bible Knowledge Commentary, for example, actually claims “Law (tôrâh, ‘instruction’ not the Mosaic Law) will be given in Zion.”[41] On the one hand you might be able to appreciate the thought that this “torah” is to be associated with the reign of the Lord—and so it is His Law—but ultimately Moses’ Teaching did originate with Him.

While this oracle, delivered via two of God’s Prophets, anticipates that revelation will come forth from Zion and Jerusalem to change the world—there should be no doubting that this torah is indeed Moses’ Teaching. In the Septuagint of both Micah 4:2 and Isaiah 2:3, torah was rendered with nomos or Law—meaning that what will go forth from Zion will indeed be the Pentateuch. Ancient Diaspora Jews or Greek readers examining the LXX would have undeniably associated this nomos to be the Law of Israel’s God. Yet, we are very safe to assume that the torah or instruction that will go forth from Zion will not include Genesis-Deuteronomy exclusively, and that it also includes instruction coming forth from God’s Prophets and the Tanach Scriptures in general. Childs describes,

“Indeed there is a broadening of the term invoked in part by the larger context of an expanding collection of sacred scripture...[T]he subject matter of the prophetic message as divine truth continues to exercise a coercion on Israel such that the Mosaic Torah itself increasingly received its full meaning from the divine reality witnessed to by the prophets...In a word, both law and prophetic proclamation were expanded in terms of a deepening grasp of God’s reality, but neither was subordinated in principle to the other.”[42]

This should be fairly easy for Believers in Yeshua to understand, as He insisted that He did not just come to fulfill the Law, but more specifically the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). Coupling torah as relating to the Tanach Scriptures, and the fact that in the eschaton it will be the Messiah Himself delivering their authoritative interpretation, we are probably also justified to regard the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) as a part of “the word” (devar) to be declared.

The Words of the Prophets

According to Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4, God’s Law is supposed to supernaturally go forth. I would submit that given the original circumstances surrounding the assembling of the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council, that these were some of the very prophecies in the mind of James the Just when he issued his decree regarding the new, non-Jewish Believers who were coming to faith in Yeshua. These people did not need to be “ordered” (cf. Acts 15:5, ESV) to follow the Torah, as insisted upon by some of the hyper-conservative Pharisees. James instead acknowledged how “the words of the Prophets” (Acts 15:15) were to be allowed to take shape. Why rigidly or forcibly insist that these new Believers were to follow the Law, when the Prophets anticipated the nations coming to Zion to be taught it? Would it not be better to see such an expectation take place as was sovereignly decreed by God?

Rather than insisting that these new Believers be circumcised as Jewish proselytes, James issued four non-negotiable requirements for them to enter into the ekklēsia—along with the word that Moses had been publicly declared since ancient generations, up until the present (Acts 15:19-21). The Apostolic decree was intended to effectively cut off the new, non-Jewish Believers from their previous social circles in Greco-Roman paganism—making their new social circles communities of Jewish Messiah followers, and the wider Jewish population. Given the natural fulfillment of prophecy, and not meddling mortals forcing things, the non-Jewish Believers would just participate in what was anticipated by words such as Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4. The responsibility of the Jewish Believers was to welcome them into the community of faith as fellow brothers and sisters, facilitating an environment where they could be mentored and discipled in God’s Word—and above all loved.[43]

The key emphasis of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 is that the teaching of God’s Torah to the nations will bring forth great peace. Is there at all implied within this prophecy the idea that the nations, in being taught from the Torah, will adhere to all of the same commandments as Israel—or only those things which would be directly concerned with peace, love, and mercy? Would going to Zion to be taught from God’s Torah imply that the nations, in being instructed, would find themselves observing things like the seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, or eating kosher? Were these things only intended for ethnic Israelites, or intended for all who look to Israel’s God for hope and salvation? Noting the opinion of David Kimchi (or Radak, 1160-1235), I.W. Slotki considers the torah the nations will hear to be “religious and moral instruction.”[44] This seems to imply that the training they will receive will be more encompassing than just ethical and moral matters.

The oracle of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 is obviously most concerned with the nations being properly instructed in their ethics and morality, beginning with casting aside their weapons of war. At the same time, though, its message is rooted within the fact that faithful Israelites were to go up to Zion several times each year during the moedim or appointed times (cf. Leviticus 23, et. al.)—and such Israelites would go there to be similarly taught the main ethical responsibilities involved with following Moses’ Teaching. Allen indicates,

“Year by year bands of pilgrims would make their way to Jerusalem to engage in festive worship, in the course of which they would receive instruction in the moral traditions of the covenant. This Israelite pilgrimage is here magnified to universal dimensions. Not merely Israel, but their pagan neighbors from all around would one day...[will] there learn lessons which they would put into practice back in their own communities.”[45]

The message of the Apostolic Scriptures is that all of God’s people make up a singular entity known as the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12), which is to acknowledge Yeshua as Messiah, follow the Torah as a positive result of His redemptive work (Romans 8:3-4), and with all persons functioning in mutual submission to one another (Ephesians 5:21). All three of these principles joined together is not frequently heard in today’s Messianic movement, but it forms the thrust of what it truly means for born again Believers to truly make up the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB) that the Lord wants to see emerge. Nowhere in the Bible do we ever see the implication that the community of Israel is to remain an exclusively Jewish entity; but neither do we ever see the Jewish people as the torchbearers to Israel to be demeaned or replaced as unimportant. They do indeed have an irrevocable calling that is to be honored and respected (Romans 11:29; cf. 3:2).

The faults of human personality often result in the trajectory of the Scriptures—of all of God’s people being united in a way similar to the Father and Son (John 17:21)—being skewed. People place their own ethnic or social needs over those of others, quite contrary to Philippians 2:4 admonishing, “do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” When two of Ancient Israel’s Prophets declare that the Torah will go forth from Zion, and that the nations will be taught it and they follow it, we should not be that surprised why some of today’s Messianic Jews really do not want there to be a great amount of attention given to such an expectation. The oracle of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 lays a definite foundation for a Kingdom of Israel being a bit more diverse than just something made up of Messianic Jews, who are somehow related to a far off and distant Christian Church.

In his commentary on Isaiah, Tucker concurs how “This is just what many people fear, and always have feared: that one’s own individual or national self-interest would be subordinated to that of the common good...”[46] It is commonly thought among today’s Messianic Jews that if non-Jewish Believers are allowed into the community of Israel, on an equal basis with them following the Torah similar to the Jewish Believers, that the distinctiveness of Messianic Jews will be canceled out. It is the same claim that is often made against the gender equality restored in the Apostolic Scriptures, as though elevating wives to the same authoritative level as their husbands, will somehow cancel out the distinctiveness of males—or that female leaders in the Body of Messiah will somehow cancel out the importance of male leaders. If we can act like mature adults in the Lord, and move beyond such fearmongering and get in touch with the will of the Holy Spirit, then we can see why a mutual submission option is so important: it involves one group of people first considering the needs of another group—and vice versa—and weighing in how everyone has something to contribute to the well being and vitality of the ekklēsia. It would manifest itself in a Messianic movement that takes the best qualities of its shared Jewish and Christian heritage, and puts them to good use for the Kingdom of God. Given some of the debates that the broad Messianic movement witnessed throughout the 2000s, it is high time that we consider what “be subject to one another in the fear of Messiah” (Ephesians 5:21) really means.

The prophecies of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 anticipate the nations coming to Zion to be taught from the Torah, resulting in shalom. This has already been happening to a degree via the influx of many evangelical Christians into today’s Messianic Jewish congregations. Many Messianic Jews do not like this, and so in various ways—either direct or indirect—they pressure non-Jewish Believers to leave. (Or, they at least let them know that Messianic Jewish congregations are primarily present to reach out to Jews, and not really to anyone else.) If this is the approach of some of today’s Messianic Jews, at most all they can do is delay the fulfillment of these prophecies, but they cannot stop it.

A mutually submissive and mutually honoring community of all Messianic Believers coming together is what can genuinely see Messianic congregations be places where there is definitely ministry work focused to Jewish people who need Messiah, as well as Christians who are investigating their Hebraic Roots. As Motyer so excellently describes our prophetic oracle, “It expresses poetically the ‘Abrahamic’ status of Israel (Gn. 12:3; 22:18) as the elect of God, chosen as the means of universal blessing.”[47] If various Messianic Jewish leaders today are not concerned about being conduits of blessing to all, and are not willing to see the Torah taught to the nations and the global peace envisioned by this word come about, then what might it say about their level of spiritual maturity? I would just say that they need to be left in God’s hands.

Looking at Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4, the need for the nations to submit to Moses’ Teaching cannot be denied—as it will truly and ultimately result in worldwide shalom. In Webb’s estimation, “Peace on any other terms is a cruel delusion, a truth we need to bear in mind constantly as we seek to be faithful to God’s word in our own, modern world of religious pluralism.”[48] There are, in fact, serious consequences to those who will not desire to be instructed by the Lord, as Micah declares: “I will root out your Asherim from among you and destroy your cities” (Micah 5:14). No leader or teacher wants to be responsible for failing to instruct any one of God’s people in what it means to live appropriately from His Word—resulting in them having to suffer either some kind of temporary chastisement or worse, eternal punishment. So, if the nations are not taught properly from the Torah, what might happen to some of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders? Again, let us leave them in God’s hands.

What does it mean for the Torah to “go forth”?

The importance of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 is something that is witnessed every Shabbat in the liturgy of the Jewish Synagogue. Far be it from torah being declared just being some vague “instruction,” the pronouncement “Torah shall come from Zion, the word of Adonai from Jerusalem” is made right at the point when the Torah scroll is pulled from the ark.[49] Ehud Ben Zvi only confirms, “In Jewish liturgy this portion of [Micah 4:2]...is read when the Torah scroll is taken out of the Ark to be read.”[50] After this, then the sefer Torah is unrolled and the weekly parashah is canted to the congregation. While this tradition connects Jews to their past before modern printing and books, the expectation that the Law will go forth to the nations from Zion is something largely futuristic. This same liturgy is often repeated in today’s Messianic Jewish congregations as well. But, has speaking it over and over again become so rote that not enough have a grasp on its worldwide implications?

There is an eschatological expectation witnessed in the Prophets that the Torah will go forth from Zion, with the nations streaming to hear it. How does this affect the purpose and calling of today’s Messianic movement, and the role it is to play in the wider world? How are we to capture as much of the expectation of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 in our service for God’s Kingdom now, before Yeshua returns?

This prophetic oracle very much anticipates how the separation of the nations at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) will be reversed. All nations and peoples will worship the One God of Israel, they will be taught from His Law, and true world peace will prevail. The Torah, while originally given to Israel, is something that is to not just affect Israel proper—but the whole world—because as R.L. Smith reminds us, “Israel did not live in a vacuum.”[51]

We should expect Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 to take on some significant fulfillment in the future, but given the Apostolic Scriptures’ common emphasis of a realized eschatology—of Believers living the life of the age to come now before it is fully manifest (cf. Galatians 1:4)—much of what has been foretold can already be enacted. The Last Days are a stage in history that started two millennia ago with the First Coming of the Messiah (Acts 2:17; Hebrews 1:2), although more is undoubtedly to be expected.

Throughout history, faithful Christians have frequently looked to Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 to emphasize “the word” as the gospel going forth to the world, and born again Believers possessing peace in their hearts via the salvation they cherish in Jesus Christ.[52] Along with this have been those who have truly thought that the proclamation of the good news is to be attended with some kind of proclamation from God’s Law as a matter of proper conduct for the redeemed. Limburg describes,

“In the future here envisioned, the word of the Lord will go forth from Mount Zion and it will be for all peoples and ‘strong nations.’ This Torah is not simply head knowledge, a body of dogma or doctrine. It is instruction, a word from the Lord which calls for a response resulting in a new way of living for those who hear it, here described as walking ‘in his paths’...”[53]

Understanding the value of God’s Torah begins with comprehending how it is to bring peace to His people. Even while some Messianics may criticize Christians today who widely cast aside the Law of Moses, there have been influential Protestant traditions in history (Calvinism, Wesleyanism) that have always upheld the Law as a source of piety and morality. They have expelled more concentrated effort to see the thrust of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 realized in the lives of people, than anyone else since the First Century has. This has manifested not only in seeing people saved from sins, but also in wanting to help one’s fellow man via various humanitarian works (i.e., building hospitals, orphanages, schools, homeless shelters, relief missions to the third world). Today’s Messianic Believers stand in their debt, and have the responsibility to continue their positive work—especially now in reaching out to the Jewish people who do not yet know Yeshua!

Most importantly, the oracle of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 can only be fulfilled if an environment of peace can be created by leaders and teachers within the Body of Messiah. Sadly, this is the one area that is not accomplished too well by today’s Messianics, as various “Torah teachers” are among some of the most likely, in fact, to cause unnecessary divisions and discord. Those who promote some degree of a “restoration of Torah” are not always associated with a great, sizeable message on how we are to be about restoring human wholeness. Micah 4:6-8 specifies some of the disenfranchised groups who are to be immediately affected by Moses’ Teaching going forth to the world:

“‘In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘I will assemble the lame and gather the outcasts, even those whom I have afflicted. I will make the lame a remnant and the outcasts a strong nation, and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on and forever. As for you, tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you it will come—even the former dominion will come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.”

If the “restoration of Torah” we hear so much about is not concerned with serving the needs of the lame and downtrodden—more than other areas of obedience—then what does that say? G.V. Smith is right to point out, “The goal of God’s teaching is the practical direction of people’s lives...His powerful presence and persuasive message will transform the thinking and behavior of millions in the last days.”[54] I believe that today’s Messianic movement surely does possess the potential to make such a difference, but that it will require the implementation of some significant changes in how we think and act.

While much more could be said on the changes that our faith community needs to make, when I read Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4 what immediately strikes me is how Yeshua emphasized “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). If the Torah is to be declared to the nations, and is to result in peace—then anyone teaching it is to be a diligent peacemaker, wanting all to experience Divine blessing and harmony in their lives. Teachers are to desire the full realization of the Aaronic Benediction (Numbers 6:24-26), brought about by the indwelling presence of the Spirit (John 14:17), which can only result in people being edified (Romans 12:18; 14:19). When this becomes our vision for spiritual service—then we will truly make the sizable difference that the Lord wants us to make, culminating in the return of Yeshua and His Kingdom of total shalom.

In seeing the Torah go forth to the world, let us truly anticipate and look forward to the Messiah’s reign of peace! Let this prophetic word be as common to us as it was to the generations of Micah and Isaiah!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter

5

[1] This chapter is reproduced from J.K. McKee, One Law for All: From the Mosaic Texts to the Work of the Holy Spirit (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012).

[2] Walter Kaiser, Mastering the Old Testament: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Dallas: Word, 1992), 58.

[3] Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 28.

[4] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 53.

[5] John N. Oswalt, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 115.

[6] Cf. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pp 275-276, 398.

[7] Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 113.

[8] S. Goldman, “Micah: Introduction and Commentary,” in A. Cohen, ed., Soncino Books of the Bible: The Twelve Prophets (London: Soncino Press, 1969), 169.

[9] Leslie C. Allen, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 321.

[10] Goldman, “Micah,” in Cohen, 169.

[11] Cf. Kaiser, Micah-Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi, 59.

[12] Daniel J. Simundson, “The Book of Micah,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), pp 564-565.

[13] Ralph L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), pp 36-37.

[14] Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 322.

[15] Cf. Ehud Ben Zvi, “Micah,” in Jewish Study Bible, 1211.

[16] Kaiser, Micah-Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi, 59.

[17] CHALOT, 155.

[18] BDB, 425.

[19] Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 326.

[20] Bruce K. Waltke, “Micah: An Introduction and Commentary,” in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Vol 23a (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 169.

[21] BDB, 435.

[22] Thomas E. McComiskey, “Micah,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 422.

[23] Kaiser, Micah-Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi, 59.

[24] Gary V. Smith, NIV Application Commentary: Hosea/Amos/Micah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 508.

[25] Cf. Simundson, in NIB, 7:565.

[26] James Limburg, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Hosea-Micah (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 183.

[27] Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 323.

[28] Smith, NIV Application: Micah/Amos/Micah, 509.

[29] Goldman, “Micah,” in Cohen, 170.

[30] John D.W. Watts, Word Biblical Commentary: Isaiah 1-33, Vol 24 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 28.

[31] Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 116.

[32] Ibid., pp 116-117.

[33] Childs, Isaiah, pp 29-30; cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 117.

[34] Barry G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 45.

Cf. Isaiah 36:7; 2 Kings 18:4, 22; 2 Chronicles 14:3; 32:12.

[35] Gene M. Tucker, “The Book of Isaiah 1-39,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 67.

[36] Watts, 29.

[37] Motyer, Prophecy of Isaiah, 54.

[38] Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, pp 117-118.

[39] Tucker, in NIB, 6:67.

[40] Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 118.

[41] John A. Martin, “Micah,” John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1484.

[42] Childs, Isaiah, 30.

[43] For a further discussion, consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[44] I.W. Slotki, Soncino Books of the Bible: Isaiah (London: Soncino Press, 1983), 10.

[45] Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 323; Waltke, 169.

[46] Tucker, in NIB, 6:69.

[47] Motyer, Prophecy of Isaiah, 52.

[48] Webb, 45.

[49] Jules Harlow, ed., Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2007), 139; cf. J.H. Hertz, ed., The Authorised Daily Prayer Book (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1960), pp 473-475; Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz, eds., Complete ArtScroll Siddur, Nusach Ashkenaz (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1984), pp 432-433.

[50] Ben Zvi, in Jewish Study Bible, 1211.

[51] Smith, Micah-Malachi, 38.

[52] McComiskey, in EXP, 7:422.

[53] Limburg, 181.

[54] Smith, NIV Application: Micah/Amos/Micah, 508.

-6-

Is Messiah the Termination of the Torah?

2000/2009

(Or: Is Christ the End of the Law?)

J.K. McKee

A foundational principle of Christianity is supposed to be “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).[1] In theory, most evangelical conservative Christians claim to honor the Bible as if all of it is the inspired, inerrant Word of the Lord. However, in practice, the same cannot often be said, especially when it comes to many Christians’ attitude concerning their approach to the Law of Moses, or the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy).[2]

The Psalmist declares, “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:8), and “If Your law had not been my delight, then I would have perished in my affliction” (Psalm 119:92). Yeshua (Jesus) tells us in Matthew 19:17, “if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” These concepts are admittedly hard to understand for many of today’s Christians. They show us that God’s Law is to play some role of importance in the lives of His people.

Have we not also been taught, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8), and “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Messiah died needlessly” (Galatians 2:21)? These too are important concepts of our faith not to be disregarded.[3]

The Apostle Paul writes, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling[4] the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). We are to be very careful when handling Holy Scripture, especially if one claims that certain parts of it, such as the Law of Moses, are no longer relevant for today’s Believers. As Yeshua warns, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

What is the average Christian to do about what can appear to be contradictions in the pages of the Bible? From one perspective, we could argue that the Torah is not for Believers today, whereas from another we could come to the conclusion that Believers must and should be observing God’s commands, with His judgment ready to strike the disobedient at a moment’s notice. Rather than be dogmatic about a particular persuasion, let Biblical continuance be our quest. Let us understand that the Bible has no contradictions regarding God’s purpose and plan for His people—and that it is our job to seek what is true above all else—even our own opinions. We must synthesize what appear to be opposing viewpoints among Scriptural passages.

Through the advent of the Messianic movement and Believers embracing the Hebraic Roots of their faith, many have been convicted to study and keep God’s Torah. But at the same time, there are concerns that exist, the first one often being, “you are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). Letting the whole of Scripture be our guide, we will attempt to set straight many of Christianity’s misconceptions of the Law in this article, as “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7). As Yeshua told a group of Pharisees, “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46), as they seemingly forgot to read what the Torah said of Him. Have we made the same mistake, failing to see Yeshua for who He is in the Torah of Moses? How much do today’s Christians not understand human sin, and the Savior who came to redeem them, because they do not study God’s Torah (cf. Galatians 3:24; Romans 3:20)?

Initial Misgivings About “the Law”

When many Christians think about the Law of Moses or the Torah, often they conjure up a listing of rules and regulations given by a God who will “strike them down” if they disobey or do not obey them “perfectly.” Too many fail to observe that much of modern Western government is in fact based on the writings of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Even more so, the United States of America has more laws than any other country on the face of this planet, and it is considered by many to be an example of “true freedom.” Law by no means is something that equals “bondage”!

As far as personal understanding or application is concerned, the Torah is not just “the Law.” The Hebrew torah is often defined as “direction, instruction, law,” and could also be called “teaching” (BDB),[5] being derived from the verb yarah.[6] Depending on your perspective, you can treat God’s commandments as “orders,” or as the loving instructions of a Heavenly Father. The Apostle John writes, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). God Himself says, “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11). God’s Torah is not intended to be something hard for His people to follow.

Most of our controversy concerning the validity of the Torah is not going to come from the Tanach or Old Testament. It will rather come from the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, and Christian misunderstandings—or sometimes biased translations—of certain Greek words. One such example can exist with the Greek word nomos, commonly translated as “law.” Imperative to a proper understanding of nomos is that this word is an all-inclusive Greek term entailing: law, teaching, instruction, rules, and natural laws of the universe.[7] When the Apostolic Scriptures speak of “law,” it is important to determine what law it is speaking of. Is the nomos mentioned the Torah or the Law of Moses, or is it a spiritual law/constant such as the law of sin and death (i.e., Romans 8:2)? This can only be known by the context of how nomos is used.

Many Christians I know would agree with what has thus far been mentioned. Very few Christians will say that the Law of Moses did not serve a purpose, as Jesus did say, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). They will agree that Yeshua did not come to “destroy” (KJV) the Law. But certainly He has already fulfilled it for us, right?

To this we answer yes and no. The Greek verb translated “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17, plēroō, notably means “to make full, to fill, to fill up,” or more importantly, “to make complete in every particular, to render perfect” (Thayer).[8] In order to be the promised Messiah of Israel, Yeshua must have observed the Torah of Moses perfectly as He is our Passover Lamb and blameless sacrifice. Yeshua had to fulfill the Torah by living it without any error. Nowhere in His sayings or actions did He ever contradict the Torah or teach others to disobey it. Even those who believe that the Law of Moses is not to be followed by today’s Christians, recognize that Jesus lived as a Torah-faithful Jew.[9]

If we continue reading Yeshua’s critical admonition in Matthew 5:18-19, we discover some extremely important statements:

“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. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

In these verses, the Messiah clearly says “till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (RSV). Now we would have to ask ourselves, has all been accomplished? Are Heaven and Earth gone? Have the prophecies within the Tanach or Old Testament all been fulfilled? Are we presently in the renewed Kingdom of God on Planet Earth? Is Yeshua ruling and reigning from Jerusalem?

Any objective reader is forced to answer a resounding “no” to these questions. Furthermore, what did Yeshua mean by stating, “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20, NIV)? This is important to comprehend because there are some who believe and teach that the Messiah came to do exactly this—annul or abolish the commandments of the Torah. But this is obviously not proper, unless such people really do want to be considered “least” in God’s Kingdom.

From Yeshua’s own words, is He telling us that we need to keep the commandments of the Law of Moses? Yes! Because Yeshua also said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS’” (Matthew 7:21-23; cf. Psalm 6:8)?

This, of course, opens up an entirely new range of theological questions. Your average Christian’s understanding of Holy Scripture often (only) comes from the epistles of Paul, which were letters written to various communities of Believers in the First Century, to address specific problems that each one of those congregations faced.[10] In fact, some I have encountered have gone as far as to say that Christians need not concern themselves with Yeshua’s words, because He “was speaking to the Jews” and that Paul was the “apostle to the Gentiles.” But as you will find as you examine them closely, a great deal of Paul’s writing is teaching on Torah-related issues as applied in a community!

Throughout his writings the Apostle Paul upholds the importance of God’s Torah, telling us, “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). The Torah is something that is “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). In Romans 3:31, he writes, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” The Greek verb histēmi is translated “established” in the NASU, but it fully means “to uphold or sustain the authority or force of any thing” (Thayer).[11] The RSV and NIV actually render it as “uphold.”

Some Christians might argue at this point that they are “under the law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2), which would be correct. But who is the Messiah? Is not Yeshua the LORD God made manifest in the flesh? As God, was not the Messiah at Mount Sinai giving the commandments to Moses? 1 Corinthians 10:4 tells us that Ancient Israel “drank from a Spirit-sent Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Messiah” (CJB). To follow the “Law of Christ” means to follow the Torah as Yeshua followed it as our example.

To deny that the Torah composes Yeshua’s commandments says that He is not the LORD God, and is tantamount to denying His Divinity and oneness with the Father. And Yeshua’s oneness with the Father (cf. John 10:30) also involves the Father and Son being of one accord (cf. John 17:11, 21).

Others would argue that the Law of Moses was “for Israel.” 2 Kings 17:37 does summarize, “The statutes and the ordinances and the law and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever.” But such people misunderstand the fact that Yeshua came as the Messiah of Israel to restore Israel (Jeremiah 33:7; cf. Matthew 16:18), and that at Shavuot/Pentecost Peter declared, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Messiah—this Yeshua whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Most importantly, the Apostle Paul wrote non-Jewish Believers that because of their salvation in Yeshua they had become a part of the “commonwealth of Israel,” previously having been without “hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12; cf. 3:6).

Born again Believers are not part of a separate group of elect known as “the Church.” On the contrary, in the Last Days the Lord’s major purpose is to restore Israel—and this includes both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in His Son, Yeshua! This is the people that the Messiah is returning to rule and reign with, and this people is certainly called to obey God’s Instruction, as the Torah is to go forth from Zion (Isaiah 2:3; Micah 2:4).

There is a plethora of references throughout the pages of the Bible telling us that the Torah and its commandments are “everlasting” or “for all generations.”[12] But why do we have those trying to tell us otherwise? Why do some people so easily, or even flippantly, want to disregard God’s instructions? Are there those within Christianity whose traditions are more important to them than Scriptural truth and continuity? Are some trying to maintain the “status quo,” so they do not have to admit they are possibly wrong and might have to change? Has today’s contemporary Church truly benefited from largely ignoring the Law?

What does Romans 10:4 actually mean?

We now arrive at the heart of the matter. In most Bibles, Romans 10:4 is translated “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (NASU). The first part of the verse, “Christ is the end of the law,” is a cause of much confusion among Believers today. First, it would seem to contradict Yeshua’s admonition to us in Matthew 5:17-19. Second, it would also contradict Paul’s previous writing in Romans 7:12.

The Messiah is not the “end” or the “termination” of the Law of Moses. The Greek word translated as “end” in Romans 10:4 is telos, meaning “the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose” (Thayer).[13] AMG offers us some valuable commentary, by stating that telos “does not, as is commonly supposed, mean the extinction, end, termination with reference to time, but the goal reached, the completion or conclusion at which something arrives…or as a result, acme, consummation.”[14] Yet how many people fail to read that small footnote in their Bibles for Romans 10:4, which often says “Or, goal?”[15]

The Complete Jewish Bible offers a good translation of Romans 10:4: “For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.” The relatively new TNIV says, “Christ is the culmination of the law.” N.T. Wright further suggests that “climax” is the best understanding for telos.[16]

More generic English Bible translations such as the Contemporary English Version translate Romans 10:4 as, “But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary for those who become acceptable by God through faith.” Interestingly enough, a footnote exists in the CEV stating, “or ‘But Christ gives full meaning to the Law.’”[17]

Romans 10:4 also brings us to a more perplexing paradigm: What does it mean when Christians say “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes”? The Apostle Paul continues, by explaining,

“For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ‘DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, “WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?” (that is, to bring Messiah down), or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Messiah up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART’—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Yeshua as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED’” (Romans 10:5-13).[18]

Some might say that the Messiah is a termination of the Torah as far as righteousness is concerned. But a critical question we must ask ourselves is: Did righteousness ever come through the Torah?[19] Paul comments in Galatians 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Messiah died needlessly.” But Paul also tells us, “Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law” (Galatians 3:21). Even if the source of one’s righteousness is not the Torah, this does not all of a sudden make the Torah unimportant.

If we consider a more correct understanding of Romans 10:4, we see that the Messiah is the aim or purpose or climax of the Torah, and faith in Him provides us the righteousness that we should all desire—something that the Torah testifies to (Romans 3:21), but is not the origin of. The Torah is to point to the Messiah, who is the Source of our righteousness (Philippians 3:8).

The purpose or telos of the Torah is to convict a person of his or her sin, reveal the individual’s violation of God’s commandments, and thus reveal a person’s sin nature and need for a Divine Savior.

As Paul has said, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COVET’” (Romans 7:7). The commandments of God’s Torah are to convict a person of his or her sin. Paul continues, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3). The Torah on its own cannot provide redemption; only the sacrifice of the Son of God can. He in turn justifies a sinner, and obedience to the Law comes from one who emulates Yeshua’s example.

For the born again Believer, the Torah can continue to convict, so one can “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), knowing what to confess daily before the Father when we fall short of His high standard.[20] Paul told Timothy that “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV), an appropriate use being “a corrector of the foolish…having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth” (Romans 2:20). For born again Believers, the Torah instructs us on what it means to live as a part of God’s Kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6).

Yeshua the Messiah sums up the Torah of Moses for us very nicely:

“‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ And He said to him, ‘“YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets’” (Matthew 22:36-40).

What may be surprising to some of your average Christian readers, is that Yeshua’s admonition for us to love God and neighbor is quoted directly from the Torah. These commandments were not “made up” as some may unconsciously believe when they gloss over the Gospels:

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18).

Summarized, both Yeshua the Messiah and the Apostle Paul uphold the validity of the Torah for the Believer. This is not to say that the position of the Torah has not changed since Yeshua’s sacrifice, and that some modifications have been made in regard to the Temple and priesthood (cf. Hebrews 7:12)—but it is to say Christians today must reevaluate the Torah’s position and applicability for their lives. Let us truly make the Messiah “the goal at which the Torah aims” (Romans 10:4, CJB), as opposed to the “end of the law.” Otherwise, Paul has contradicted himself (cf. Romans 7:12) and we should consider Yeshua’s admonition of the Law not passing away (Matthew 5:17-19) to be null and void, or Yeshua has misled us. This cannot be, and we have a job to do in reconciling what may appear to be contradictions in the Biblical text.

If we assert the position that the Torah is no longer valid, then do we join liberal theologians and their assault on the Holy Scriptures—that they are not the inspired Word of God and are full of contradictions? Has a wide dismissal of the Law and Moses, and the Old Testament in general, really helped today’s Christians to be all the things that God wants them to be? We probably need to do better in acknowledging the words of our Lord Yeshua: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

What are those commandments? They are found in God’s Torah! Let us return to Moses’ Teaching, and be molded into men and women who have the wisdom that God desires us to have—testifying of His goodness to the world around us by lives of faithful obedience (Deuteronomy 4:6).

Your Response

Your response to the message of the Torah’s validity for Believers today is totally up to you. As it is written in Psalm 119:142, 152, “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth…Of old I have known from Your testimonies that You have founded them forever.” The Psalmist also declares, “Those who love Your law have great peace, and nothing causes them to stumble” (Psalm 119:165). An unfortunate admonition to us comes from Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.”

Is this the state of Christianity today? What is the long-term purpose of the modern Christian’s walk with the Messiah? Are we truly praying “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10), and doing all we can to see Yeshua return in power and glory to establish His Kingdom? Let us not be as “one [who] turns aside his ear from hearing the law, his prayer, too, will be [considered] an abomination” (Proverbs 28:9). Would today’s Christianity be riddled with the ethical and moral problems it currently faces, if it had a much higher view for the role of the Law?

There are no easy answers to these questions. There is no easy answer that I can give to the person whose beliefs have just been challenged. I can tell you, however, what Yeshua told us: “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:21). If we truly believe that Yeshua is God, then we will do what He said and will believe that the commandments of the Torah are His commandments. We should all want the best relationship with God as possible, and obey Him because we love Him.

Yeshua says in Matthew 24:12 that in the Last Days “because lawlessness shall have been multiplied, the love of many will grow cold” (LITV). The Lord issues a very sobering word in that, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness [CJB: ‘people who are far from Torah’]” (Matthew 13:41).

Will you be one of those lawless people? Will your messiah be the man of lawlessness, the antimessiah/antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3)? I sincerely hope not. Or will your Messiah be the One who said, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19)? Will you seek to not be one of the least, and strive to obey God? Should we not all want to be great in God’s Kingdom? Knowing that obedience to God brings His blessings should not be a difficult lesson to learn.

I leave you to contemplate these questions. Will you see the Torah as pointing to the Messiah, by revealing the sin you need to repent of in your life—drawing you to the foot of the cross? Or will you see Yeshua as lawless, annulling the commandments of His Father? As it has been validly observed, if God had a problem with His Torah, then He must have found a problem with Himself. To say that the God of the Universe has a problem with Himself is to say that He has made a mistake.

But the Lord has not made the mistake. We in our fallen human nature have made the mistake in discounting His statutes and considering them to be archaic and unimportant. We have also suffered from failing to take note of important things that God’s Law speaks against, often having a view of sin which fluctuates too much in various shades of gray.

If the Torah is for you and its validity is upheld by our Lord Yeshua and the First Century Believers, what Christian traditions or practices will you need to reevaluate, because they may violate our Father’s commands in some way? If Scriptural continuity is what you seek, then I would encourage you to truly aim to see the Messiah in the Torah! If you are a Christian who truly desires to live a life like Jesus Christ, then you will want to follow the Father’s commandments as He did. This is what being a disciple is all about.

The Torah is what has defined sin for humanity,[21] and as all have sinned—we are all guilty of transgressing God’s commandments in varying degrees. We have a responsibility to repent of our disobedience, and pursue obedience to our Heavenly Father’s Instruction. We know that as regenerate Believers, we may still stumble, but we should have the understanding that the Messiah has taken away the curse of the Law—eternal punishment (Galatians 3:13). Out of gratitude for what He has done for us through His shed blood atonement, we should naturally want to follow His example and seek to follow the Torah. This obedience comes as an outworking of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27) via the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34),[22] and is something that is to bring us great blessings as we are continually sanctified and changed by God’s love!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 6

[1]

This chapter is reproduced from J.K. McKee, Introduction to Things Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012).

[2] And by extension, the whole of the Tanach or Old Testament.

[3] It is interesting that even though many Christians quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to rightfully affirm that salvation comes by grace through faith, that the following verse, Ephesians 2:10, is often not often quoted. This ever-important verse asserts, “For we are His workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” Salvation indeed comes by God’s grace, but good works are to accompany such salvation.

[4] Grk. orthotomeō; “to teach it aright” (LS, 567).

[5] BDB, 435.

[6] Cf. Ibid.

[7] L.A. Jervis specifies how nomos can mean “both ‘law’ and ‘custom’ and so could refer to the laws of a society and to that society’s habits and customs” (“Law/Nomos in Greco-Roman World,” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 632.)

[8] Thayer, pp 517-518.

[9] D.J. Moo describes how “Jesus does not so much oppose the Law as [He] claim[s] to transcend it” (“Law,” in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992], 456).

[10] The Pauline Epistles are summarized from a Messianic perspective in the workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[11] Thayer, 308.

[12] Exodus 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:17; Leviticus 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Numbers 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10; Deuteronomy 5:19; Psalm 119:160.

[13] Thayer, 620.

[14] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, NASB (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994), 1881.

[15] Ibid., 1498.

[16] His comments are well taken, where he asserts “the Messiah is himself the climax of the long story of God and Israel, the story Torah tells and in which it plays a vital though puzzling part. God’s purposes in Torah, purposes both negative and positive, have reached their goal in the Messiah, and the result of that is the accessibility and availability of ‘righteousness’ for all who believe” (N.T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 658).

[17] Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1995), 971.

[18] Cf. Deuteronomy 30:12, 14; Isaiah 28:16; Joel 2:32.

[19] Consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website “Deuteronomy 6:25” (reproduced in this publication’s section on “FAQs on the Torah”) which considers the individual and corporate dynamics of tzedaqah, discussing the likelihood that Ancient Israel’s declaration “It will be righteousness for us…” relates to their corporate identity as God’s people.

[20] As John Wesley preached in his sermon “Properties of the Law,”

“I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare Christ: seeing I now want it as much, to keep me to Christ, as I ever wanted it to bring me to him…Indeed each is continually sending me to the other,—the law to Christ, and Christ to the law. On the one hand, the height and depth of the law constrain me to fly to the love of God in Christ; on the other, the love of God in Christ endears the law to me ‘above gold or precious stones;’ seeing I know every part of it is a gracious promise, which my Lord will fulfill in its season” (N. Burwash, ed., Wesley’s Doctrinal Standards Part I: The Sermons, with Introductions, Analysis, and Notes [Salem, OH: Schmul Publishing, 1988], 350).

[21] Cf. Romans 3:19b.

[22] Cf. Romans 11:27; Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17.

-7-

What Does "Under the Law" Really Mean?

2000/2009

J.K. McKee

Those of you who have been in the Messianic community for any elongated period of time know that we can be a controversial group of people.[1] Those of us who were raised in mainstream Christianity and have now joined Messianic congregations have questioned much of what we were taught in the past, testing it against Scripture. While today’s Christianity did indeed give us a foundational grounding in the Word of God, and thankfully and gratefully presented us the gospel of salvation available in Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), it is nevertheless a human religious system, and as such did present us with some non-Biblical teachings.

One of the errant teachings of much of contemporary Christianity, which has re-arisen in the past few years as the Messianic movement has gotten larger, is the belief that Yeshua the Messiah came to abolish the Torah or the Law of Moses. Those of us who have entered into the Messianic community of faith do not believe this to be true. We evidence this in our lives by now practicing many of the things that Christianity has deemed unimportant for the Body of Messiah, but were adhered to and kept by Yeshua’s early followers. We keep the seventh-day Sabbath or Shabbat, we celebrate the appointed times of Leviticus 23, and we follow the kosher dietary laws. These are just a few Torah practices that most Christians believe are unimportant.[2]

Now this I do not choose, as some in the Messianic community do: to vehemently criticize, berate, and harass Christians who do not feel the same way as I do about these issues. I have taken my fair share of negative comments and realize that some are not ready to hear or receive the message. All things happen in the Lord’s timing, and much more unites Christians and Messianics than divides them (Ephesians 4:1-6). Yet one of the reasons why there can be problems between Christians and Messianics is because many Messianics do not know how to properly defend their faith and practice. Rather than examining Scripture, insulting terms are usually thrown around and fights ensue. This is most evident when Christians who oppose Torah obedience claim that we are “under the Law”—and that this is not a position in which born again Believers should want to find themselves. Sadly, in my opinion, much of the Messianic handling of this one phrase has been anything but proper. We must be able to properly respond to this and see how it is used in the New Testament.

This article addresses the clause “under the Law” (Grk. hupo nomon), how it is used, and what it means in its appropriate context in view of what both the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures tell us about the significance of God’s Torah. We will examine Yeshua’s words on the matter of the Law of Moses. We will examine how a variety of Christians and Messianic teachers have handled this term. We will then test these claims against what the Apostle Paul says in his letters. When you finish reading, the next time a Christian says that you as a Messianic are errantly “under the Law,” you should be able to properly respond to his claim.

Blessings and Curses

Before we examine the phrase “under the Law,” it is imperative that we understand the importance that the Torah is to play in the lives of God’s people. Should its instructions continue to guide God’s people today?

Our Heavenly Father says in Deuteronomy 7:6, “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” The Hebrew word qodesh specifically means, “apartness, sacredness, holiness” (BDB).[3] God’s people are supposed to be separate from all the other peoples of the world. Ancient Israel was to do this by keeping God’s commandments that were contained in His Instruction, the Torah:

“The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will be afraid of you. The LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground, in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you” (Deuteronomy 28:9-11).

If Israel is faithful to obey God, then His people are promised by Him to be established as a holy people, and it will lead to their greatness. The Hebrew verb qum appears in the Hifil stem (casual action, active voice) and has a variety of possible applications in this text, including: “cause to arise, raise,” “fig. raise (to dignity, power),” and “erect, build” (BDB).[4] This is an indication that if Israel keeps the commandments that it will become a great people and be blessed by the Lord. Deuteronomy 4:5-6 specifically says,

“See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it. So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’”

Notice that by Israel’s obeying the Torah, it would be said of them that “Only a wise and understanding people is this great nation” (Alter). If Israel obeyed the Lord, the people would be blessed by Him—and being blessed by Him they would serve as a testimony to outsiders of His goodness. If there is anything that we need today, it is wise people who know Yeshua as Savior and can understand God’s Word with the power of the Holy Spirit—being examples of those blessed by Him! Deuteronomy 4:6 is a significant statement of mission and purpose. God’s people need to be able to discern things based on Scripture, and possess the ability to share His wisdom with others.

But what if the people did not heed the words of God’s Torah, and instead chose to disobey Him? Before Moses’ death at the end of Deuteronomy, the assembly of Israel is instructed to go to Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. They are to be divided up, with twelve distinct blessings and curses to be pronounced upon the tribes (Deuteronomy 27:1-26). They are to end with a final word: “‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (Deuteronomy 27:26).

This is not a light usage of Amein, or “verily, truly” (BDB).[5] The people of Israel are told that if they do not allow God’s Torah to be upheld and established as their ruling principles, that they will be cursed because of their sin and disobedience. In their being cursed, they would find themselves subject to the Torah’s penalties. Their answer to God’s request is so be it.

Scriptural history and the nature of fallen humanity show us that Ancient Israel was not faithful in keeping the Torah. In fact, both the Lord and Moses knew this would happen. Deuteronomy chs. 29 and 30 detail the judgment and curses that would manifest because of disobedience.[6] However, even though Ancient Israel was once disobedient to the Torah, there are still blessings to be gained by following it. As Paul taught, “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin” (Romans 7:13a). The Torah is something that is “spiritual” (Romans 7:14), and “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV).

Our Heavenly Father gave His people the Torah and its commandments to demonstrate His love for us, and His desire to watch out for us. Because of the love we should have toward Him, we should naturally want to follow what He has told us to do—especially as its commandments form the basis of proper ethics and morality. As Moses’ Teaching details,

“Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the LORD’s commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today for your good?” (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

The Lord says that His commandments are l’tov lakha, “for your benefit” (ATS) or “well-being” (NRSV). The Torah was not given as something to place God’s people into legalistic bondage or be a yoke to them, but rather to provide them the best way to succeed on Planet Earth, both spiritually and physically. God certainly did not free Ancient Israel from Egyptian bondage via the Exodus, only to later guide them to Mount Sinai and place them in bondage to the Law!

Of course, over the centuries since Moses was given the task of teaching the Torah to Ancient Israel, there was disobedience to it. After the people entered into the Promised Land, there were struggles with how to implement the Torah, including a period of anarchy (Judges 17:6). Israel was at its peak during the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, yet because of Solomon’s idolatry and disobedience to the Torah, the Kingdom split. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was besieged, with many taken captive by Assyria because of its disobedience and idolatry. The Southern Kingdom of Judah was taken into Babylonian exile, for seventy years, likewise because of its disobedience and idolatry.

Upon their return, the Jewish exiles made it a point to teach the Torah publicly (Nehemiah 7:73-8:12). The Jewish people have taken the Torah very seriously because of past judgment incurred from disobedience. When Israel is fully restored in the Last Days, there will once again be a return to God’s Torah as the New Covenant is implemented completely (i.e., Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27).[7] And we are also told that the Torah will go forth from Zion to the nations (Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2). In our day, we are witnessing non-Jewish Believers in Yeshua embracing their Hebraic Roots and taking the Torah very seriously, as these prophecies begin to manifest themselves. This, as you can imagine, is causing quite a stir.

What did Yeshua say?

By the time Yeshua walked the Earth, there were various parties in the Jewish community that approached the Torah differently. The two parties most featured in the Apostolic Scriptures are the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees only accepted the Written Torah, Genesis-Deuteronomy, as being relevant Scripture, and did not regard what is considered the rest of the Tanach (Old Testament), or the Prophets and Writings, as applicable. As a result, they had a very limited view of the world and did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, angels, demons, or miracles.[8] The Pharisees, in contrast, considered the entire Tanach as applicable Scripture, and they believed in the resurrection, angels, demons, and miracles. But they also believed in the validity of the Oral Torah or Oral Law, which composed various traditions carried down over the centuries which gave explanation to the commandments. This Oral Law was later written in the 200s C.E. and is what we now largely know as the Mishnah.[9] The Pharisees and the Sadducees made up the religious council known as the Sanhedrin.

Many people who read the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament believe that the Pharisees were all antagonists against Yeshua. Of course, many of them were, but so were many Sadducees. Yet at the same time, many other of His followers were Pharisees—and Yeshua’s theology and that of His Disciples was closer to that of the Pharisees than that of the Sadducees. In fact, the Apostle Paul did indeed proclaim before the Sanhedrin, ani P’rush (UBSHNT) or egō Pharisaios eimi—“I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6). Surprisingly to some Paul does not say, “I was a Pharisee.”

If you have an understanding of the First Century times in which Yeshua lived, and have committed yourself to Torah study, you will have a better background than most who read the Gospel narratives. William L. Lane indicates how often “NT statements critical of Judaism have to be interpreted within the context of intramural conflicts among Jews in the first century. These conflicts were rooted in divergent attitudes toward the Torah and halakhah.”[10] So, you are likely to discover that when Yeshua debates with the Pharisees, it is most often over Torah interpretation and application—internal debates—not doing away with God’s commandments as is often viewed.

So what were Yeshua’s words on the matter of the Torah? Consider what He says in Matthew 5:17-19 in His Sermon on the Mount:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away with, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

These three verses of Scripture are of significant importance for those of us who believe that Yeshua is the Messiah and that He is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14)—meaning that by living a perfect life He followed the Torah perfectly and is without sin. Because Yeshua is our example for living, all Scripture regarding the Torah must be interpreted through His words. The Apostle Paul concurs, “Whoever teaches” must “agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:3, NRSV). No matter how hard it may seem to be, or how unpopular it may be, common claims that the Torah has been done away and that it is no longer relevant for today must be reconciled to Yeshua’s words. That is, if Yeshua’s words are indeed final.

So what is Yeshua communicating? When the Messiah says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” He is telling us that His mission is not to do away with the Law of Moses, contrary to what some Bible teachers may think. The Greek verb translated here as “abolish” is kataluō, meaning, “to end the effect or validity of someth., put an end to” (BDAG).[11] He says quite clearly “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” (KJV).

Yeshua tells us what His precise intention was regarding the Torah: “I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.” The Greek verb plēroō means “to make full, to fill, to fill up,” “to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize” (Thayer).[12] What this means is that in “fulfilling” the Torah, Yeshua came to live it properly as our example, how we are to “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Many do not agree with this, and instead think that the Messiah “fulfilled” the Torah only in a prophetic sense, thus abolishing it, and that it is not relevant to be followed today. But “fulfill” is by no means a synonym for abolish! Yeshua’s next words indicate the correct context of the passage and what He intends His followers to understand:

“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.”

This verse is confusing for some readers, because the KJV says “till all be fulfilled.” However, the verb translated as “fulfilled” in the KJV of v. 18 is not plēroō, which is used in v. 17, but is rather ginomai, “to become” (Thayer).[13] “Fulfilled” is a misleading translation, because what the Messiah actually says is that until all is accomplished the smallest letter and stroke, or “jot and tittle” (KJV) of the Torah, will not pass away.

The Lord makes a reference to Heaven and Earth passing away before the Torah passes away. Are Heaven and Earth still here? Yes. So why do we have those who say that the Torah is no longer for today? Have they somehow missed it?

We know that the validity and relevance of the Torah continues to this day, as Yeshua concludes His remarks with the following:

“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:18-19).

The Messiah attaches eschatological rewards to those who keep the commandments of the Torah and teach them to others, and eschatological penalties to those who do not keep the commandments and teach others to break them. The word “least” or elachistos is of extreme importance. AMG defines this as, “The least, minimal in magnitude,” “in number and quantity,” “in rank or dignity,” “in weight or importance.”[14] What does this mean? Does it mean that many who have taught that the Torah is no longer to be followed are going to be given few rewards in God’s Kingdom?[15]

It is not our place as humans to judge the (eternal) status of anyone, but we must heed the Lord’s words and endeavor to follow His admonition.[16]

The Torah was given to God’s people to be a blessing. Those who follow His Torah and obey its commandments are to experience the rewards of obedience. Those who disregard the Torah and disobey its commandments will be penalized and/or cursed. In today’s vernacular, we might say that the Torah can either be your “best friend” or your “worst enemy.” As Believers, we are indeed forgiven of our sin should we fall (1 John 1:9)—but we are to strive not to sin. The Apostle John writes, “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us” (1 John 3:24).

So how does not being “under the Law” factor into all this?

What Christians Have Said About “Under the Law”

Before we examine the clause “under the Law” from a Messianic perspective, it is important that we understand what a great deal of Christian handling of “under the Law” has concluded, so we can know what to respond to.

In the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Updated Edition (NASU), which is a widely used and respected literal Christian translation, the phrase “under (the) Law” appears in eleven verses.[17] (Further on I discuss how some  of these verses cannot be literally translated with “under [the] Law.”) The example I have chosen to illustrate the standard Christian interpretation of “under the Law” is Romans 6:14-15, which says,

“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (NASU).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, edited by Dallas Theological Seminary theologians John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, states that “The mention that believers are ‘under grace’ (v. 14) raised another aberrant idea that the apostle refuted. The question is, Shall we sin because we are… under grace instead of the Law?… Paul’s response was the same as before (v. 2): By no means!”[18]

This commentary equates being “under the Law” as observing the Torah, by using the description “under grace instead of Law.” It concludes that when Paul says that Believers are “under grace” they are no longer required to follow God’s Torah, but at the same time that Believers are not permitted to sin. If one does not follow God’s Law, is this not a license for sin? Something has to define sin, right? This commentary only says, “this can be done by following Paul’s instructions.”[19] Certainly while Paul’s letters are important for anyone who considers the Bible authoritative, is this enough?

What does the good Apostle himself say in Romans 3:20? “[F]or through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” The Apostle John further says, “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Sin is violation of God’s Torah. In 2 Corinthians 6:14 Paul admonishes, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” How can these unbelievers be practitioners of lawlessness if they are not breaking, whether knowingly or unknowingly, the Torah of God? All of humanity is subject to the penalties of breaking the Law (Romans 3:19b).

Equating “under the Law” as following God’s commandments comes up short because both the Apostle Paul and Apostle John testify that sin is defined by God’s Torah, and they admonish people to avoid lawlessness. As the Torah demonstrates, if you disobey its commandments then you will be cursed. If we are instructed by Paul not to sin, and the Scriptural definition of sin is defined as lawlessness or disobedience to God’s Torah—then Paul is actually telling Believers not to transgress the Law of Moses, contrary to what many of today’s Christians may believe.

Christian theologians need to do a better job of examining the whole of Scripture, especially if they tell us that Believers are to exclusively follow Paul’s instructions. When Paul says, “For this, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF’” (Romans 13:9), he was not just making this stuff up so to speak. He was quoting directly from God’s Torah.[20] And if Paul still upholds the commandments of the Torah as being valid and relevant instruction (or at least including valid instruction) for Believers, then what does “under the Law” really mean?

The standard Christian interpretation of “under the Law” as being forced to follow God’s Torah also comes up short because of the position of unbelievers in this paradigm. Are unbelievers who have rejected salvation in the Messiah “under the Law” or are they “under grace”? Considering that Paul’s letters were written to regions of the Roman Empire where the non-Jewish, non-believing populace were not following the Law of Moses, this is something that needs to be seriously considered. Being “under grace” is something that is only available for those who know Messiah Yeshua and have been redeemed. Keep in mind that when one disobeys God’s Torah a person will face punishment. Would not the non-believing pagans in the communities to which Paul was writing be cursed by their sin: their idolatry, fornication, homosexuality, etc.? Rather than being under grace, would they not instead find themselves under the condemnation of the Law?

If these pagans are not “under grace,” then what are they “under”? They cannot be “under nothing.” Paul says in Romans 1:25, concerning the heathen, that “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Romans 1 in its entirety discusses how these people are turned over to sin. What is the status of these people? We often do not find a satisfactory answer by many Bible teachers today.

What Messianics Have Said About “Under the Law”

What has the Messianic handling of the term “under the Law” been? Those Messianics who believe that Torah obedience is something to be encouraged in the Body of Messiah have had a substantial amount of contemporary Christian teaching relating to the Law of Moses, that is engrained in the minds of many, to address. As a result, there are varied responses as to what “under the Law” really means.

Most of the Messianics that I have encountered turn to the works of Messianic Jewish theologian David H. Stern, author of several books, including the Jewish New Testament and Jewish New Testament Commentary. He explains his opinion that the Greek clause hupo nomon, which is translated as “under (the) Law” in most Bibles, more accurately means “in subjection to the system which results in perverting the Torah into legalism.”[21] Using the example of Romans 6:14-15 given above, he translates these verses,

“For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under legalism but under grace. Therefore, what conclusion should we reach? ‘Let's go on sinning, because we're not under legalism but under grace’? Heaven forbid!” (CJB).

Justifying this translation, Stern remarks in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that “The word twice translated ‘under,’ upo, means ‘controlled by’…or ‘in subjection to,’”[22] which leads him to conclude that the best translation of nomos is “legalism,” rather than just “Law” or “Torah.” While perverting the Torah of God into legalism is surely something that is wrong, critics of the Messianic movement have attacked Stern for subjectively rendering nomos as “legalism” in some places, and then as “Torah” in others. While Stern’s works have certainly helped the Messianic community, it is notable that his translation is not literal, and thus it cannot be used as a prime source work in refuting any anti-Torah attitudes that one may encounter in today’s New Testament theology.

I believe that many Messianics have misdiagnosed the problem of why Christians they encounter can be hesitant to consider a Torah observant lifestyle. Messianic Jewish authors Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz comment in their work Torah Rediscovered, “First and foremost, the Torah is ‘God’s teaching.’…The word does not mean ‘law’; it means ‘teaching.’”[23] They further state that Bible translators could not just “break out of their centuries-old tradition” and “have chosen a translation of ‘law’ where Torah would have been the accurate translation.”[24]

The root problem of why Christians are hesitant to following the Torah is said by many Messianics to be that both torah in the Hebrew Scriptures and nomos in the Greek Scriptures should be translated as Torah and not “law.” We should not doubt that the Hebrew term torah—derived from the verb yarah, meaning to “throw, cast,” “shoot (arrows),” and “direct, teach, instruct” (BDB)[25]—more accurately means “Teaching”[26] or “Instruction,” or just plain “Torah.” There have been some misunderstandings regarding its translation as “Law,” and some Christians might think that God’s Torah is just legalistic rules and regulations. Yet even with this clarification explained to various Christians, I cannot concur that this is the primary problem.

It is only a modern phenomenon whereby the word “law” has come to have a negative connotation among Christians, as law and order are good things. The Jewish Rabbis who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek three centuries before the Messiah thought the same thing, and thought that nomos, the Greek word for “law,” was the best rendering for torah. God’s Torah would be the ruling principles of a proper society. This carried into the Apostolic Scriptures. Perhaps if they had known that in the future “law” would come to have a negative meaning they would have chosen something else, but we have to live with their decision.

To diagnose the translation of torah as nomos or “law” as being the primary problem is not proper, especially when the term “law” is used frequently in many modern Jewish Torah commentaries, and even the 1917 Jewish Press Society version to translate torah. Modern Jewish teachers do not seem to have a problem with the term “law” as much as some Messianics do. And it would not even occur to most Christian translators to possibly render nomos as “Torah” in English versions of the New Testament.

The primary problem of why many Christians do not want to adopt a Torah obedient lifestyle is something that many people are not willing to see, including many in the Messianic community. (And it certainly gives me no pleasure to mention it, either.) This reason is humanity’s inbred desire to disobey God, which results in sin and being cursed just as the Torah tells us. Knowledge of God’s commandments can cause an unredeemed person to sin (Romans 7:13b), and if not dealt with assertively, can spread vociferously throughout a faith community. Consider what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.” This epistle was written in about 50-52 C.E., only twenty years after the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven.

By the end of the First Century, lawlessness or disobedience to the Torah grew to such an extent in parts of the ekklēsia, that we can understand the Apostle John’s poignant words where he says, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4). John directly tells His audience that if they do not follow God’s commandments, but at the same time claim to know the Messiah, then they were speaking lies. And, most soberly for today, we must consider Yeshua’s own future word: “Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).

We are now in an appropriate position to understand what “under the Law” really means.

What Scripture Says About “Under the Law”

The phrase “under (the) Law” is used in eleven verses in the NASU,[27] which is a widely used translation by many Christians, and is widely respected and used in the Messianic community as well. We will use the NASU as our base of comparison for properly understanding what this means.

In the Greek, the clause correctly rendered as “under (the) Law” is hupo nomon. The preposition hupo, when appearing with an accusative case noun (indicating direct object), can mean “under, below; under the authority of” (CGEDNT).[28] Nomos is defined by AMG as “spoken in the NT mostly of the Mosaic statutes,”[29] meaning the Torah. Most thus conclude that hupo nomon equates to meaning “following the Law.”

But is this the only way that we can look at the phrase? We will examine each of the eleven references where “under (the) Law” is used in the NASU English text. I have listed them in their most likely order of composition (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans). Is it possible for “under the Law” to not mean being in obedience to God’s Torah, but instead being subject to the Torah’s condemnation upon sinners? Let us find out if this helps us make better sense of these passages.[30]

Galatians 3:23

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law [hupo nomon], being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

”

Galatians 3:23, although usually interpreted that being “in custody” or “confined” (RSV) pertains to being Torah obedient, has much greater significance when viewed from the vantage point that being “under the Law” means being subject to the Torah’s penalties pronounced upon sinners. Galatians 3:23 speaks of the fact that before our faith in Messiah Yeshua came, we were “imprisoned and guarded” (NRSV),[31] a direct consequence of sin. This position of the Torah changes when we receive Messiah Yeshua into our lives and receive forgiveness from our sins. We are released from the bondage to sin and are no longer “under the law.”

Redeemed Believers are released from the condemnation they once experienced under the Law, but they are not released from God’s high standard of holiness. For born again Believers, the Torah no longer serves the same purpose as it did prior to their salvation experience, having once been a harsh disciplinarian for those on the way to faith (Galatians 3:24).[32]

Galatians 4:4-5

“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law [genomenon hupo nomon], so that He might redeem those who were under the Law [hupo nomon exagorasē], that we might receive the adoption as sons.”

These verses are fairly straightforward because we can clearly see that being “under the Law” means being subject to the Torah’s penalties or its condemnation upon sinners.[33] Yeshua the Messiah came to “redeem those who were under the Law,” human beings who stood condemned because of their disobedience to God. Yeshua entered into the world as a man, to be sacrificed for us so that the Torah’s curse could be lifted for all (Galatians 3:13). Via the power of Yeshua and His atoning work, the curse of the Law has now been remitted for those who receive Him into their lives! Not being “under the Law” is directly tied to the redemption of human souls.

Galatians 4:21

“Tell me, you who want to be under law [hupo nomon], do you not listen to the law?”

Galatians 4:21 has been a cause of some misunderstanding, because the meaning of “under the Law” as being subject to the Torah’s punishments upon sinners is not often considered. When we understand the complex situation that Paul addresses in Galatians, it is not impossible for his admonition here to be understood in this light, but it does require us to reorient our approach to his letter. There was a sect of agitators in Galatia that said if you did not follow their “works of law,” being circumcised and converting to Judaism, that you could not be included among God’s people.[34] Some expositors have thought that these agitators could have been using a platform of Torah observance to promote errant teachings related to Jewish mysticism,[35] which would be strongly opposed by the Torah (cf. Galatians 6:13). If this is the case, then to paraphrase, Paul was probably telling the Galatians, “You who want to be subject to the Torah’s penalties, do you not know what the Torah prescribes for your punishment?” His statement was used as a form of ironic rebuke.

Sadly, many theologians over the centuries have taken Paul’s letter to the Galatians out of its ancient Jewish context and have construed that this good Pharisee taught against God’s Torah and taught against the rite of circumcision. He did no such things; but he did place these things in proper perspective in regard to faith in the Messiah. When Paul later tells these Galatians, “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Messiah will be of no benefit to you” (Galatians 5:2), he is telling this group of people that if they think circumcision and proselyte conversion are the answers to their problems—then do not even think about it! He is not speaking to all people of all generations that circumcision is wrong, but places it in proper perspective, emphasizing that it is not a salvation issue.[36] Inclusion among the righteous occurs via faith in God, beginning with the example of Abraham (Romans 4:9-11).

Galatians 5:18

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law [hupo nomon]

.”

Knowing that “under the Law” can mean being subject to the Torah’s penalties allows this verse to make much more sense to us as Messianics. Those who are not led by God’s Spirit break God’s Law (Romans 8:7). But in contrast, those who are truly led by the Holy Spirit will not be led to disobey the Lord, which would cause them to stand under the Torah’s penalties. This is because people who are led by the Holy Spirit will naturally obey the Lord and be blessed—just as the Torah tells us, because the Spirit is to write God’s commandments onto the redeemed person’s heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The Holy Spirit does, though, go beyond the Torah, manifesting itself in the fruit of a Believer’s changed life (Galatians 5:22-23), providing discernment for life events where the Torah may not deliver any instruction. This is what James D.G. Dunn properly describes as “a spontaneity and adaptability to the demands of each specific situation which rules applied whatever the circumstances can never match.”[37] But the fruit of the Spirit is notably something “against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:23, RSV), as its virtues surely align with the righteous tenor of God’s commandments.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law [tois hupo nomon hōs hupo nomon] though not being myself under the Law [hupo nomon], so that I might win those who are under the Law [hupo nomon kerdēsō]; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ [ennomos Christou], so that I might win those who are without law.”

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 is problematic for many people, because first of all, it may seem as if Paul is wavering in his obedience to the Torah. Secondly, most Bibles have mistranslated v. 21 with “under the law of Christ.”

Is Paul wavering in his Torah observance, being Torah observant around Jews, and then not being Torah observant around non-Jews? No, he is not. He says later on in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Messiah.” If Paul is being truthful with us here, and Yeshua followed the Torah, then Paul followed the Torah as an imitator of the Messiah. Imitators of Paul are to likewise do the same.

What Paul is saying in his remark “to the Jews I become as a Jew,” is that he did his best to understand the specialized needs of his audience. These were the Jews who stood under the condemnation of the Law, not being Believers in the Messiah redeemed from sin, something that Paul as a Jewish Believer was free from. Similarly, when Paul said “to those who are without law, as without law,” he did his best to relate to the pagans who did not know God’s Torah. This is probably best evident by Acts 17:22-23 when he was in Athens debating with the Athenians, making note of the Temple to the Unknown God which he viewed as a memorial to the Holy One of Israel (although the Atheninas did not know it). Paul communicates that one must do his or her best to relate to an audience, to best present them with the good news of salvation in Yeshua.

So what about when Paul says that he is not “without the law of God but [is] under the law of Christ”? (Keep in mind that if Yeshua is indeed God, then the Torah of God is His Torah.) Sadly, the rendering of “under the law of Christ” in many Bibles is incorrect. It is a mistranslation because earlier in v. 20 hupo nomon is translated literally as “under the Law,” but hupo nomon Christou or “under the Law of Christ” is not what appears in v. 21. Rather, it is ennomos Christou, which Young’s Literal Translation renders as “within law to Christ,” and could also be understood as “in-lawed to Christ.”[38]

This can certainly change one’s evaluation of Paul’s thoughts. Ennomos means “what is within range of law and governed or determined by law” (AMG).[39] So by Paul saying that he is “within the Torah to Messiah” (my rendering), he is following the Torah as the Messiah demonstrated it (cf. Galatians 6:2). Paul’s obedience is thus focused around His work in his life and the imperatives of the gospel as first seen in the Torah (cf. Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8), beginning with love for God and neighbor.[40] The same should be true of us as well, as we are to compose God’s Kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6)—serving as intermediaries between Him and the rest of the world.

Romans 2:12

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law [en nomō] will be judged by the Law.”

Many believe that “under the Law” equates to Torah observance, but this is neither an accurate assessment nor a proper translation of these verses. Paul describes the state of two different groups of people relating to the judgment of God upon sinners. He first mentions those who are anomos, “without law, lawless” (LS).[41] This describes a behavioral pattern of those who live without God’s Divine Law, and will thus die in this manner. Whether one knows the specifics of God’s Torah or not in this case is irrelevant. The person turned over to sinful behavior, knowing whether something is sin or not, is still going to be judged by the consequences of such sin. Paul states earlier in Romans 1:24 that “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” By rejecting Him, they accept sin, and are delivered up to it and will be judged.

The second status is those who are en nomō, correctly rendered as “in law” (YLT). This is referencing those who know the Torah of God, and from it know what is considered acceptable and unacceptable via its commandments. Paul writes that those who sin while keeping this Law are going to be judged by it. This judgment is going to be much higher, because what is right and wrong is clearly laid out by the Lord and His commandments, whereas the person who just sins lawlessly, not knowing what God considers acceptable and unacceptable, may not be judged as severely (cf. Revelation 20:12-13).

The next verse, Romans 2:13, says, “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” The word translated “doers” is poiētēs (sing.), “a doer, performer,” and “one who obeys or fulfils the law” (Thayer).[42] It is used in James 1:22 where we are admonished, “But prove yourselves doers [poiētēs] of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.” Its verb form, poieō, appears when Yeshua tells us “whoever keeps [poieō] and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19b).

Obviously this does not at all speak against obeying the Torah, because otherwise the doers of the Torah would not somehow be considered just before God (likely here pertaining to their demonstrating themselves as a part of His own). Paul speaks of the state of the person who lives lawlessly or without the Torah, and then the state of the person who lives according to its standards. This does not at all mean that we can be redeemed by our human works. But rather with the correct understanding, “faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:17), we see that works are natural evidence of our salvation experience, and they come naturally because of our love for the Lord. They testify to outsiders that we are His people. They also hold us accountable in that if we know God’s Torah, we will be held to its high standard—much more than those who do not know it.

Romans 3:19

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law [en tō nomō], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God.”

The most literal rendering of Romans 3:19 is not with “under the Law” but rather “in the Law,” en tō nomō. What this means is that the Torah speaks directly to those who know what it says. Paul also says that the entire world is somehow “accountable” or “guilty” (NKJV) before God because of the Torah, likely because of basic principles of right and wrong impressioned on the human psyche via His image, which the Torah details in its commandments. Hupodikos specifically means, “Under sentence, condemned, liable, subject to prosecution” (AMG)[43]—a status for pas ho kosmos or the whole world.

Paul continues in the next verse, stating, “for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20b). The Torah is to reveal the sin in one’s life, and will hold all to accountability. The Torah shows the world what it is guilty of and what it will be punished for, as “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:7). Yet, the mind set on the Spirit (Romans 8:5) is to subject itself to a spiritual Law from God (Romans 7:14). God’s Torah shows born again Believers the best way to get the most out of their relationship with Him by obeying Him.

Romans 6:14-15

“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace [ou gar este hupo nomon, all’ hupo charin]. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace [ouk esmen hupo nomon, all’ hupo charin]? May it never be!”

Are we allowed to sin and break God’s Torah because we are not “under law,” but instead “under grace” as redeemed saints? No. Prior to salvation, the master of the unredeemed is sin, a status which causes people to be “under law.” When Yeshua becomes a person’s Master, he or she changes and is “under grace.” Born again Believers are not to find themselves “under law,” precisely because they are covered by the blood of the Messiah. We are no longer subject to the condemnation pronounced by the Torah upon sinners, because sin is no longer our lord.

Believers who are born again and redeemed are not subject to the Torah’s punishments pronounced upon sinners—they are not “under law.” Romans 6:14-15 demonstrates our need to live responsibly being covered by God’s grace, living in obedience to Him. If we have been spiritually regenerated, we need to take to serious heart what Yeshua had to endure to take away the penalty of our disobedience to the Law via His sacrifice! Being redeemed from eternal punishment should be good motivation for us to obey God.

Our faith in Yeshua does not nullify our need to obey God, just as Paul has said, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31, RSV). Torah obedience comes as we emulate our Lord and Savior, and are transformed by God’s love.

Are you “under the Law”?

Take notice of the words of Deuteronomy 27:26: “‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” The Hebrew verb translated “cursed” is arar. “[T]he majority of ‘curse’ sayings with ‘ārar fall into one of three general categories: (1) the declaration of punishments…(2) the utterance of [something]...(3) the proclamation of laws…It is interesting that all these curse-sayings are a reflex[ion] of one violating his relationship to God” (TWOT).[44] When we violate the commandments of God’s Torah and fail to abide by its guidelines, we damage the relationship with our Heavenly Father that we should be having. Disobedience to the Lord certainly does not help the communion that we should be having with Him!

Yeshua the Messiah came to free us from slavery to sin and from the curse of the Torah that hangs over sinners: “Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE’” (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). Paul tells us in Colossians 2:13-14, “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

Contrary to popular belief, this certificate of debt is not God’s Torah, but is rather the curse pronounced in the Torah against sinners. Those who have received Yeshua into their lives and have been forgiven of their sin do not sit under the penalty of the Law, with the Torah ready to come crashing down on their heads. But even so, this gives us no reason to disobey God—for obedience brings blessings and disobedience brings curses. When we disobey our Father we damage the relationship that we have, or should be having, with Him.

So what do you have to change in your life so you can find yourself in obedience to the Lord—and hence not under any kind of denunciation from the Law?

In our day and age, our Heavenly Father is doing new and exciting things through the growth of the Messianic movement, as more and more Believers are drawn to their Hebraic Roots and a Torah obedient lifestyle. The prophecies tell us that when Israel is restored, “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them” (Ezekiel 37:24). The heart of our Heavenly Father is that we each demonstrate our love for Him and obey Him: “Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29).

Do we want to be blessed or do we want to be penalized? Do we want to have the best relationship with our Father as is possible? Or do we want to have a strained relationship? Consider these questions as you ponder whether or not following the Torah is important. Most importantly, make sure that you are a redeemed, born again Believer, who does not sit in fear under the Torah’s condemnation.[45]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 7

[1]

This chapter is reproduced from J.K. McKee, Introduction to Things Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012).

[2] These three areas are discussed in order in Chapters 9, 10, and 11 of Introduction to Things Messianic.

[3] BDB, 871.

[4] Ibid., 878.

[5] Ibid., 53.

[6] Consult the article “The Message of Deuteronomy” by J.K. McKee for a further discussion.

[7] Even though we surely partake of the New Covenant as Believers today (Hebrews 8:8-12), the New Covenant also involves a future return and restoration of the exiles of Israel to the Promised Land, as indicated by the wider cotext of Jeremiah 31.

[8] Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8.

[9] It is said that the Oral Torah was given to Moses (m.Avot 1:1), but this is certainly debatable. Some oral teaching or instruction was certainly given to Moses that over time has been added to. The Mishnah (and similarly the Talmud and Midrash) contains valuable commentary on the Torah and historical information that should be consulted in theological exegesis, but should not be considered primary to the Biblical text itself.

For a further examination on ancient Rabbinical literature, consult Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (New York and Philadelphia: Meridian Books/Jewish Publication Society, 1959).

[10] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8, Vol. 47a (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1991), cxxvi.

[11] BDAG, 522.

[12] Thayer, pp 517-518.

[13] Ibid., 115.

[14] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1993), 561.

[15] For a further discussion, consult the exegetical paper on Matthew 5:17-19, “Has the Law Been Fulfilled?” by J.K. McKee.

[16] It is at this point that it does need to be clarified that many Christians throughout history have made an appeal to what is commonly called the “moral law” of the Torah, and they will certainly not be considered “least.” (This is particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist and Wesleyan/holiness traditions.)

One of my favorite theologians, Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser, agrees that Yeshua did not come to do away with the Torah. He says, “Only those laws from which Christ releases his church may be jettisoned” (Toward Old Testament Ethics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983], 312), meaning those things directly impacted by the Messiah’s sacrificial work. He and today’s Messianics actually have no disagreement on the validity of the Torah; we just differ on the matter of how much actually has changed with Yeshua’s arrival.

[17] Romans 2:12; 3:19; 6:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:20-21; Galatians 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18.

[18] John A. Whitmer, “Romans,” in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 464.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Exodus 20:13ff; Deuteronomy 5:17ff; Leviticus 19:18.

[21] David H. Stern, trans., Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), xxiv.

Here, Stern follows the conclusions of C.E.B. Cranfield, International Critical Commentary: Romans 9-16 (London: T&T Clark, 1979), 853.

[22] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), 374.

[23] Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz, Torah Rediscovered (Lakewood, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 1996), 7.

[24] Ibid., 113.

[25] BDB, 435.

[26] The NJPS version of the Tanach consistently renders torah as “Teaching,” and references to “Moses’ Teaching” are used throughout John Goldingay’s Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003).

[27] Romans 2:12; 3:19; 6:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:20-21; Galatians 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18.

[28] Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1971), 188.

[29] Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 1015.

[30] New Testament theologian Douglas J. Moo does confirm how one possible interpretation of “under the Law” can be “under the condemnation pronounced by the law,” even though he considers it to be secondary at best (“The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 361).

[31] Grk. phroureō; meaning “to maintain a watch, guard” or “to provide security, guard, protect, keep” (BDAG, pp 1066-1067).

[32] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website “Galatians 3:24, 25” for a further analysis.

[33] John Wesley interpreted this as, “Ye are not under the law—Not under the curse or bondage of it; not under the guilt or power of sin” (Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, reprint [Peterborough, UK: Epworth Press, 2000], 697).

[34] Note how these “works of law” (Galatians 2:16[3x]; 3:2, 5, 10) are likely identity markers that would have defined an ancient Jewish religious sect, and how it followed the Torah (4QMMT).

For a further discussion, consult James W. Thompson, “Works,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1387; and the article “What Are ‘Works of the Law’?” by J.K. McKee.

[35] Cf. remarks by Samuel J. Mikolaski on Galatians 4:9, in D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1100.

[36] The issue of circumcision is thoroughly addressed in the article “Is Circumcision for Everyone?” (appearing in Torah In the Balance, Volume II [forthcoming]). Also consult his commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

[37] James D.G. Dunn, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 288.

[38] Or the CJB rendering, “within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah.”

[39] Ibid., 591.

[40] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28.

[41] LS, 74.

[42] Thayer, 527.

[43] Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 1422.

[44] Victor P. Hamilton, “arar,” in TWOT, 1:75.

[45] A more detailed exegetical analysis of this subject matter is available in the the book The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee, where Romans 3:9; 7:6, 14; Philippians 3:6; Hebrews 7:11; 9:15, 22 (all RSV) will be also be addressed.

-8-

The Message of Galatians 2010

J.K. McKee

The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians is without question the most difficult book of the Bible for today’s Messianic Believers to understand[1] (and interestingly enough, many Christians who read the letter as a whole are sometimes perplexed by it). For those who have been convicted that they need to follow a life of Torah observance, Christian colleagues will often immediately (and quite haphazardly) quote from Galatians and tell Messianics that they participate in a life of bondage from which Christ has released us (cf. 5:1). All too frequently, today’s Messianic Believers do not know what to do with the Epistle to the Galatians. Some fall back into old understandings of Galatians, and others ignore Galatians altogether. Sadly, many Christians we encounter think that they have “won” when we do not know how to respond to their critiques of us from this ancient letter. And even more sadly, some Messianics I have encountered have disregarded Galatians altogether, perhaps asserting that Paul is wrong and that his apostleship is in doubt.

The history of Galatians interpretation is something to be noted before any reader, or any teacher, goes to the text. It was during the early days of the Reformation that Martin Luther originally appealed to Galatians 3:11—“Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’”—to protest many of the abuses of Medieval Catholicism. Assuming that Paul was confronting Jewish legalists teaching the Galatians that by observing the Torah they would gain merit before God, so was Roman Catholicism teaching European Christians that if they observed the Church’s sacraments that they would likewise gain salvation. What has followed in much of Protestant theology—or at least the thoughts of many Christians—is that First Century Judaism was staunchly legalistic, believing that one had to observe the Law of Moses perfectly in order to achieve salvation.

Lutheranism itself has been marked with a largely negative approach toward God’s Torah, something that was not shared in later Protestant sectors that would come forth such as the Reformed Church or the Wesleyan movement—the latter two historically holding to a very high view of the Old Testament’s “moral law” to be followed as a means of Christian holiness.[2] Yet even while John Calvin or John Wesley would issue some praise for the role that the Torah can play in the discipleship of a Believer, just about all Protestants up until the Twentieth Century assumed that the issue confronted in Galatians was a group of new, non-Jewish Believers being errantly persuaded that faith in the Messiah had to be attended with observance of the minute rituals of the Mosaic Law. And even among today’s Messianics, whose obedience to the Torah is clearly an action of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 36:25-27) and not of the flesh, there can be a tendency to interpret Galatians along the same traditional lines. For these people, the primary issue in Galatians is one of putting the cart before the horse: obedience to God is to follow salvation, not obedience preceding belief in Him. This is not an incorrect conclusion, but it does not appear to be the main issue encountered in Galatians.

Many common presuppositions regarding Galatians have changed in recent decades, in no small part due to proposals made by a theological school often known as the New Perspective of Paul (as best seen in the writings of E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright).[3] While past generations could easily associate the religious culture of Medieval Catholicism with that of First Century Judaism, this was a far too convenient conclusion to draw. In the past century, with greater exposure to ancient Jewish literature and interreligious dialogue, various “Lutheran” opinions have changed, and it has affected how various interpreters have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians (and to a lesser degree, Romans). Ancient Judaism was not as focused on legalistic dogma (even though there were surely legalistic people) as much as it was with corporate identity—and a corporate identity that could easily skew its mandate to proclaim the message of God to the nations (cf. Genesis 12:2; Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 42:6; 49:6).

Is the main issue in Galatians really the imposition of the Law of Moses by a group of outside agitators—or is it, rather, how the non-Jewish Galatians were to be considered a part of God’s covenant people? God’s writing the Torah onto the hearts of all His people is, after all, a promise of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), something to have been expected in God’s unfolding plan and something that Paul would not have opposed (cf. Romans 11:27). But was this to be inaugurated via an act of faith, or an act of proselyte conversion? It is not difficult to see in the Hebrew Tanach how “righteousness” or “justification” does in fact have corporate connotations (i.e., Deuteronomy 6:25),[4] and for Paul, various statements made in Galatians can be understood regarding such corporate identity (2:16-17), as opposed to individual status.

If covenant inclusion among God’s people is in fact, the issue Paul primarily addresses in Galatians, then it is not only fairer to the ancient religious culture(s) of Judaism, but it makes the text far more relevant for the current development of today’s Messianic movement. Today’s Messianic Judaism is struggling over the issue of non-Jewish inclusion every bit as much as the First Century ekklēsia did. When the Apostle Peter visited the Believers in Antioch, and then certain persons from Jerusalem arrived, he separated himself during fellowship meals. This incurred a sharp rebuke from the Apostle Paul, as it meant that the non-Jewish Believers were not being recognized by Peter as his equals in the Lord (2:11-16; 3:28). These people would have had to do something drastic in order to join with Peter and his associates—like convert to Judaism. The entryway into covenant standing with God was not to be considered “circumcision” (or the ritual procedure of a proselyte, which surprisingly could have involved women as well as men),[5] but instead—as it always had been from the beginning—faith in God (3:6, 14).

Galatians is also a difficult text for Bible readers, because of the fact that it is very probable that it was one of the first Apostolic texts composed. It represents some of the very early controversies faced by the Believers, before they would be hashed out and resolved by the greater community. If Paul’s audience in Galatia are the same people he visited in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13:13-14:28) during his First Missionary Journey to the province of Galatia in Southern Asia Minor, then the Jerusalem Council had yet to convene (Acts 15). The final decision of the Council was that the non-Jewish Believers did not have to convert to Judaism in order to be accepted, although in following the Apostolic decree they would decisively be cut off from their old spheres of social and religious influence, making their new sphere of social and religious influence a Sabbath-keeping Jewish community where the Torah was taught (cf. Acts 15:19-21, 29). Paul’s letter anticipates much of what would later be decided. While it is easy for one to think of Paul being anti-Law in this letter, this is problematic when the Torah and the Prophets were, in fact, appealed to in Paul’s preaching to those in Galatia—being a part of their salvation experience (3:24)!

Anyone who reads Galatians can see that it is a text written with a great deal of emotion, because once Paul had returned to Antioch from visiting Galatia and teaching the new Believers, outside Influencers had come in and had started to ruin the proper course that the new Believers were on. Much of Galatians likely addresses issues that Paul discussed with his audience when he visited them in person. And who were these Influencers (more commonly called Judaizers)? While they were trying to force “circumcision” or proselyte conversion upon the people, with the Torah somehow involved (5:3-4), how can Paul say “Not even those who are circumcised obey the law” (6:13)? Could these Influencers have included relatively new converts to Judaism in their ranks? How could they actually disobey the very Torah that they at least claimed to uphold? While there has been a great deal of speculation offered as to what this remark means, it could very well have to do with the Galatians returning to “the basic principles of the world” (4:3), ungodly practices that they should have left behind in paganism. But rather than Paul equating God’s commandments with paganism, instead we have to realize that paganism had infected some parts of the Synagogue (4:3) with esoteric and proto-Gnostic ideas. The Influencers in Galatia could have been promoting some Jewish practices associated with astrology and/or the occult, fused into their observance of the appointed times (4:8-11).

Because of some of the complexities seen in Galatians, many commentators are agreed that to interpret the Apostle Paul’s theology exclusively from the points made in Galatians would be a mistake. F.F. Bruce warns in his commentary, “Galatians is the most ‘Pauline’ of all of the Pauline letters—so much so, indeed, that those who derive their understanding of Paulism exclusively, or even mainly, from this letter are apt to present a lop-sided construction of the apostle’s teaching—to become ‘more Pauline than Paul.’”[6] An interpreter needs to understand Galatians often in concert with Romans, particularly as this later epistle expands significantly upon some of the themes first described by Paul in Galatians—giving us additional information that we need to consider in formulating able interpretations of Paul’s whole theology.[7]

Paul’s thoughts in Galatians are not at all anti-Torah (3:21), as many readers conclude, but Paul is absolutely opposed to the Torah’s misuse where one would think proselyte conversion somehow preceded faith in God and His Messiah (5:6). This ritual likely became embedded in what is classified within the letter as ergōn nomou (2:16[3x]; 3:2, 5, 10) or “works of law.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew phrase ma’asei haTorah is employed to describe the Qumran community’s sectarian halachah or Torah application (4QMMT). Seeing how Paul uses the Greek equivalent, he would not be deriding “observing the law” (as the NIV unfortunately paraphrases ergōn nomou), indicating some kind of rote, legalistic observance—but instead he is deriding “observing the law” in a particular way.[8] This would have been a faulty interpretation and application of the Mosaic Torah that drew up inappropriate boundary markers—namely circumcision for covenant conclusion over and against faith in God. Paul’s desire is to get his readers to see the bigger picture and the bigger message of the gospel, which in fact was first proclaimed to Abraham and evidenced by Abraham’s trust in God (3:6-8). The community of faith should require faith in God and His Messiah as the determining factor for entry.

Paul opens his letter to the Galatians by affirming his commission as an apostle originating from the Lord Himself (1:1), a reminder to his audience that he has a Divine authority behind him. Contrary to many of his later epistles, Paul actually issues a doxology first (1:3-5), which includes not only praise to God, but also the fact that Yeshua came “to rescue us from the present evil age” (1:4), a period dominated by sin and disobedience.

Getting this out of the way, Paul wastes no time in expressing his disappointment with the Galatians, and how “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Messiah and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (1:6-7). This is a form of ironic rebuke where Paul is really not “amazed” (NASU), but rather is quite disturbed about the Galatians being led off course. He expresses being upset at how “some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Messiah” (1:8), actually telling the Galatians that even if an angel comes with a different message than the one that he had preached to them—“let him be eternally condemned!” (1:8b)—something he makes a point of repeating (1:9). Paul is going to make some very direct statements to his readers, because he is not looking for human approval: “If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Messiah” (1:10). He does not like those who have come after him and led the Galatians into disarray.

Because outsiders have come in and taken the Galatian Believers—largely new, non-Jewish Believers in Yeshua—away from the path of faith on which Paul had set them, Paul had a great need to reestablish his credibility in their minds. He tells them how the gospel message that he proclaimed to them he “did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Yeshua the Messiah” (1:12), an indication of how important it was. He refers to his previous experience in Judaism prior to encountering the Lord (Acts 9:1-18), specifically of “how intensely I persecuted the [assembly] of God and tried to destroy it” (1:13). He was a person “extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (1:14), an indication that he was a part of an extreme branch of Judaism, in stark contrast to his mentor Gamaliel who urged a live-and-let live policy toward the early Believers (Acts 5:34-39; cf. 22:3).[9] Paul instead hunted them down and had them stoned as blasphemers. At the right time, though, “God, who set me apart from birth…was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles” (1:15-16), taking this sinner and transforming him into an apostle designated for great service.

As a new Believer in Yeshua, who had earned a bad reputation as a persecutor of the assembly, Paul found it necessary to go “immediately into Arabia” and later return “to Damascus” (1:17). After three years of sorting things out, perhaps as he prepared himself to enter into the purpose that the Lord had set out for him among the nations (cf. Acts 9:15-16), Paul goes to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Peter and James (1:18). In this season of his early ministry he says, “I was personally unknown to the [assemblies] of Judea that are in Messiah” (1:22). Being largely called to minister to the Diaspora, “They only heard the report: ‘The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy’” (1:23). The Jewish Believers in Judea, Paul says, “praised God because of me” (1:24). Even though some may try to assert that Paul’s theology and the theology of the Jewish Believers in Judea were constantly at odds, this seems rather unlikely if they were praising God over his ministry work.

About fourteen years would pass until Paul “went up again to Jerusalem,” this time with his companion Barnabas, and also his Greek colleague Titus (2:1). We can safely assume that by this point his ministry had become substantial enough that the Jerusalem leaders would need to not only be informed, but now play a much larger role in the discipleship of the new, non-Jewish Believers he was responsible for bringing to Messiah faith. Paul tells the Galatians that this was a necessary visit: “I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles” (2:2a), a presentation before them of how he proclaimed the good news to the nations at large. He did this first “privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (2:2b), an indication that he did seek a level of approval from the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly. (This is different from the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council, which was a much more public meeting.) He could have expected these largely conservative, Jewish Believers to demand that the Greek Titus be circumcised and become a Jewish proselyte, but this was not required of him (2:3).

This was important for the Galatians to consider, because the circumstances that require Paul to write to them have already manifested themselves among the leaders of the ekklēsia, many of whom walked with the Lord Yeshua Himself. In contrast to the Jerusalem leaders, “some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Messiah Yeshua to make us slaves” (2:4)—entering into a private meeting that Paul was having and disturbing the conversation.

The kind of fleshly bondage that these “false believers” (NRSV) were trying to introduce stood in stark contrast to what Paul describes in Romans 7:22, with the person who is eager to exclaim, “For in my inner being I delight in God's law.” The Psalmist considers following God’s Torah to be a means of freedom (Psalm 119:45-46), but when used improperly for the wrong reason (and Paul himself says in 1 Timothy 1:8 that “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly”), it can be considered a form of slavery no different than that experienced by Ancient Israel in Egypt. (The verb used by Paul, katadouloō, is employed in the LXX of Exodus 1:14[10] to describe the slavery of Ancient Israel.) Ancient Israel was not brought out of slavery to the Egyptians only to be brought to Mount Sinai to be put in bondage to God’s Law. On the contrary, God’s Torah was to be a means by which Israel could fulfill His mandate of being a blessing to all (Genesis 12:2; Deuteronomy 4:6). The false brethren brought in an “obedience” of the flesh, versus what James the Just would emphasize as an adherence to the Torah of liberty (James 1:25). The demand of the false brethren that Titus be circumcised and thus become a proselyte was something that Paul and the Jerusalem leaders—“we”—“did not give in to…for a moment” (2:5).

Paul discounts these false brethren as having any importance at all, even though they “seemed to be important” (2:6). He tells the Galatians that the Jerusalem leaders to whom he went to specifically meet, “saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews” (2:7). A level of trust and mutual respect were formed between the Jerusalem leaders and Paul, as Paul could recognize that God “was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews,” and they recognized that God “was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles” (2:8). Obviously within these unique callings, there would be some difference of approach and emphasis. Paul’s opponents in Galatia may try to appeal somehow to the authority of the Jerusalem assembly, yet it is only Paul who can say “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me” (2:9). And when the Jerusalem leaders asked him to remember the poor, Paul says this was “the very thing I was eager to do” (2:10; cf. Acts 11:27-30). It is not unimportant that remembering the poor is a very critical component of the Torah’s instruction (Deuteronomy 24:10-22).[11]

Paul relays to the Galatians how a problem erupted when Peter visited Antioch, where “I opposed him to his face because he was clearly in the wrong” (2:11). When various individuals arrived from the Jerusalem assembly led by James, “he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof” (2:12, NASU), eating with these Jewish Believers and not with the non-Jewish Believers, causing a schism. Peter was in the wrong because previously, in the vision of the sheet, God had shown him that all people were made clean via the work of Yeshua (Acts 11:4-10; cf. 10:9-16). There are many reasons proposed for Peter’s separating himself, and it could very well have been Peter’s having to answer to some ultra-conservative Jewish Believers when he returned to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:1-3), as “he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group” (2:12b). Other Jewish Believers in Antioch—even Barnabas—“joined him in his hypocrisy” (2:13). Peter had been shown by God that such separations among His people were unacceptable, yet he did it anyway.

In recounting this, Paul says “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew’” (2:14). In separating himself from the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch—thinking himself to act like a good Jew—Peter actually found himself treating these Believers in the same manner as pagans would have treated him! Causing a split in the assembly, Paul asked him that in order for the non-Jewish Believers to join with him: pōs ta ethnē anagkazeis Ioudaizein, or “why do you compel the nations to Judaize?” (2:14b, LITV). This is not a reference “to follow Jewish customs” (NIV) and/or obey God’s Torah, but rather by Peter’s actions of separating himself he would be communicating that the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch would have to go through the procedure of becoming a Jewish proselyte to join with him. (The verb Ioudaizō is used similarly in the Greek Septuagint rendering of Esther 8:17 to render the Hebrew yahad.[12])

Paul tells Peter that both of them as good Jews should know better, not acting like “Gentile sinners” (2:15; cf. 1 Maccabees 1:34), as they had God’s Torah to guide them and to tell them how to relate to others, being a proper beacon of His wisdom (Deuteronomy 4:6). Both Paul and Peter should know enough from their reading of the Tanach Scriptures that being justified or a member of God’s covenant people was to come most principally via trust and belief in Him, and not human action. And then comes one of Paul’s most poignant remarks that cannot be separated from its ancient context:

“Yet [we] who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2:16, RSV).

Here, the two important terms at work are: (1) ergōn nomou—“works of law” relating to the halachah or identity barriers of a religious community, and (2) pisteōs Iēsou Christou—“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” relating to His obedience unto death.[13] A person is not “justified,” meaning entering into covenant status among God’s people, by a community’s man-made rules—the kind of rules that caused Peter to separate himself from the non-Jewish Believers, requiring them to become Jewish proselytes in order to be considered spiritual equals. On the contrary to this human action, it is by the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah—His obedience to the Father via His sacrifice for all—whereby one is considered a member of God’s people. This is the faithfulness that the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch had recognized by virtue of them receiving the Messiah of Israel into their lives as Savior. Unfortunately, translations like the NIV skew the rendering of ergōn nomou as “observing the law,” so people think that obeying God’s Torah is the issue, when in actuality the scene in Antioch regarded debates over ancient halachah. (The issue of table fellowship was by no means agreed upon within Second Temple Judaism.)[14]

So if the scene in Antioch was not between a group of Jewish Believers which kept the Law of Moses, and a group of non-Jewish Believers which did not keep the Law of Moses—with both in fierce opposition—then what was it, actually? It was instead an emerging and developing faith community where the Jewish Believers had to shed some of their ultra-conservative customs in order to accommodate the needs of the new non-Jewish Believers, bringing unity to the assembly. Not everyone had figured out what it meant to be “justified in Messiah” (2:17)—meaning that their main identity was found in Him (cf. Philippians 3:7-11)—and so there would inevitably have to be some kind of an incident, like the Apostle Peter separating himself, before a resolution could be determined.

In his rebuke to the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul gave him a brief testimony of how he had been changed by the Messiah: “If, while we seek to be justified in Messiah, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Messiah promotes sin? Absolutely not!” (2:17). Yeshua the Messiah is not to be blamed if some people define covenant inclusion in an inappropriate way, inconsistent with what His faithfulness (or work on the cross) has brought. Peter’s bad behavior is to ultimately not be regarded as a reflection back on Yeshua and His example. Paul reflects on his previous way of life as a zealous Jew, “If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker” (2:18) or a “transgressor” (NASU). To insist that Paul is saying here that he would be found a “Law-breaker” by returning to a life of following God’s Torah is utterly absurd. But if Paul’s previous Jewish experience, which included things contrary to the missional thrust of God’s Torah, is in view, then it fits well with the theme of his letter. This would have been a previous life for Paul marked by a zealousness to persecute the early Believers (1:13), and also be more insistent of proselyte conversion than the Influencers in Galatia could ever be!

Galatians 2:19 is very difficult for Messianics to understand because Paul says, “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.” Is Paul saying that he died to the Torah as a standard of God’s holiness? No. Paul says later in Romans 7:12 “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good,” and examiners can often be agreed that Romans 7:9-10 gives a much further explanation of what is intended in Galatians 2:19: “Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” Romans 7 depicts a common scene of a person coming to salvation, where the message is “you...died to the law through the body of Messiah…But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law” (Romans 7:4, 6)—speaking of the penalties pronounced upon sinners that Yeshua has taken away for us as Believers via His sacrifice (Colossians 2:14). Was this something that the Apostle Peter forgot to emphasize—the fact that the penalties pronounced upon sinners had been remitted via Yeshua’s sacrifice—“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (2:16, Grk.)?

Paul is free of the Torah’s condemnation upon him, so that he might live the life God has intended for him. He says, “I have been crucified with Messiah and I no longer live, but Messiah lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (2:20). He recognizes that it is only by the “grace of God” that one can be considered “righteous”—here regarding Paul’s being forgiven of sin—and that “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Messiah died for nothing!” (2:21). Human action will not merit a person remittance of sin, nor should it be the factor where one is admitted among God’s people. The Messiah’s atoning death is what will do these things. Contrary to the message being proclaimed by the Influencers in Judea of inclusion via their “works of law” (2:16), the message of Paul is one where one’s life is to be found decisively in what Yeshua has done (2:20-21). The actual role that the Torah plays is secondary—one of revealing and condemning sin—to the primary role that Yeshua plays of freeing people from sin.

Paul finishes his encounter with Peter in Antioch, turning his attention back to the Galatians’ situation. He is very upset. He tells them, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (3:1a). While it is easy in today’s West to disregard the idea that the Influencers were part of some esoteric Jewish sect—this can be supported from Galatians 3:1, and from Paul question of whether or not the Galatians were actually “hypnotized” (HCSB).[15] The Galatians should know that their identity is first and foremost in Yeshua the Messiah, who “was clearly portrayed as crucified” (3:1b) to them in Paul’s teachings. This was attendant with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit among them, something which did not come from the “works of law” advocated by the Influencers (3:2). Paul does not understand what could have happened: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing…?” (3:4). God did not give the Galatians His Spirit and demonstrate miracles via the Influencers’ “works of law,” but rather “by hearing with faith” (3:5, NASU). Certainly, obedience to God is expected via this “hearing” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4-7),[16] but the focus is on emulating the Messiah and not a group of human teachers.

Paul makes a strong appeal to the example of Abraham as the prototype for the Galatians to emulate. Abraham’s trust in God resulted in him being considered righteous (3:6; Genesis 15:6). Abraham certainly obeyed God in His commands for him to leave Ur and sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 15:7; 22:2), but his trust in God preceded his obedience to Him. Paul asserts, “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham” (3:7), emphasizing one of the most important statements he makes in his entire epistle: “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (3:8; Genesis 12:3). Those who believe in God, and consequently now in the Messiah He has sent, believe in a good news that was originally given to Abraham (3:9)—a message largely underemphasized by those agitating the Galatians.

If one follows the Influencers’ “works of law,” then one will actually find himself cursed. Why is this the case? It is not as though obeying God’s Law will merit God’s curse, but forgetting things in the Torah will merit God’s curse. Paul says “as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse” (3:10, NASU), appealing to Deuteronomy 27:26 and saying “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” (3:11). One of the most obvious things written in the Torah is the promise that all will be blessed by Abraham and his seed. If one’s missiology is devoid of this understanding, then for Paul, the “works of law” or man-made halachah of the Influencers causes them to disobey the Torah and thus find themselves cursed (or at least penalized) by God. By failing to recognize all of the ramifications of the original Abrahamic promise—especially now that the Messiah has come—one is likely to be found disobeying God and be subject to chastisement from Him.

But Paul’s message is not at all one where perfect obedience to the Torah—even its missional imperatives to be a blessing—is exclusively what God wants of us. He reminds his readers, “no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith’” (3:11; Habakkuk 2:4). Following the Torah is not enough, because “the law is not based on faith” (3:12a)—even though the Torah is certainly “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). Faith requires God’s people to reach out beyond what the Scriptures tell them (Hebrews 11:1). However, Paul is not discounting the Torah here as a standard of good conduct, saying all’ ho poiēsas auta zēsetai en autois, “yet[17], HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM” (3:12b, my translation; cf. Leviticus 18:5). Paul certainly would have expected the Galatians to adhere to the good sexual ethics portrayed in Leviticus ch. 18, which he quotes from! While eternal life is to be found in trust in God (versus trust in idols—Habakkuk 2:18-19), God’s Torah is the sphere of where one’s standard for daily living is to be found.

As important as the Torah may be for such daily living, Paul wants the Galatians—and any Believer for that matter—to place his or her attention on Yeshua and His completed work. “Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). Here, the issue is clearly tēs kataras tou nomou or “the curse of the law”–not the high standard of holiness embodied in God’s commandments. All of humanity, even persons in just a basic sense, are subject to the Torah’s curse upon sinners (cf. Romans 2:14-15). With God’s plan manifesting itself in the sacrifice of His Son, “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the [nations] through Messiah Yeshua, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit” (3:14). With the sacrifice of Yeshua enacted, what God originally promised to Abraham of all being blessed can be fully realized—especially in the lives of those individuals who have welcomed the gospel, been spiritually regenerated, and are no longer subject to the Torah’s curse.

What the Influencers in Galatia had done was to muddy the waters by failing to emphasize the original promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2). Paul provides an example from everyday life that the Galatians should be able to relate to: “when a man's will and testament has been duly executed, no one else can set it aside or add a codicil” (3:15, NEB). If such a human agreement can not be added to, why do the Influencers think they can add to God’s agreement to Abraham by requiring proselyte circumcision? Abraham was physically circumcised at a much later point in his life, after God’s agreement with him and as he matured in his relationship with God (Genesis 17:10; Romans 4:10-11). The gravity of trying to add to this original promise of being a blessing to all is most severe, because to Paul the principal Seed of which it speaks is the entry of Yeshua the Messiah into the world (3:16).

The Influencers had completely forgotten the life example of Abraham, thinking that the admonition to circumcise (Exodus 12:48) took priority over faith in God (Genesis 15:6). While the Torah was formally given to Israel after the life of Abraham, this does not make void God’s agreement with Abraham (3:17). The inheritance that God intends for His people is by His promise (3:18). But let us not think that simply because the Torah given to Israel came after this promise that it is somehow invalidated. Paul is trying to re-prioritize the confused thinking of the Galatians, wanting them to see that Abraham’s faith in God came first, with the Torah coming second. The Galatians’ own faith in Yeshua is to come first, and anything relating to the Torah is to come forth as a result of that faith (3:5b).

The fact that torah existed prior to Mount Sinai, as Abraham himself observed God’s torot or “laws” (Genesis 26:5; cf. Sirach 44:19-20), is something that can easily elude many readers of Galatians. When Paul says, “What, then was the purpose of the law?” he is clear to say “It was added because of transgressions…” (3:19), and here we are perfectly justified to ask: Which law? The verb prostithēmi primarily means “to add to someth. that is already present or exists” (BDAG),[18] and so in 3:19 the regulations regarding the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifice in Moses’ Teaching are likely what were added to a torah composing a basic ethical and moral code. With Yeshua’s arrival, we have seen “a change of the priesthood” with “a change of the law” (Hebrews 7:12), not with the Torah’s standard of holiness abolished—but with the necessary internal rearrangements made to accommodate Yeshua’s sacrifice, so the New Covenant can be manifest (4:26).

The fact that the promise of God to Abraham is superior to the Instruction, given at Mount Sinai, is not difficult to see: “The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator” (3:19b). This is intended to affirm God’s supremacy, more than anything else. If there were others involved in the giving of the Torah—with God directly, with no one else present, gave Abraham explicit promises (3:20)—it necessarily places a priority on the Abrahamic promise. Yet even though the Torah may be secondary to God’s promise, Paul is insistent, “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!” Paul’s point is that “if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law” (3:21).

God’s intention is to bring His Son into the world, who will provide righteousness to those who believe (Romans 3:22)—being the Source of their forgiveness and their principal identity. The Torah is God’s holy standard defining sin, indicating what all people must be forgiven of. This is why Paul tells the Galatians, “Before this faith [in Messiah] came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until this faith should be revealed” (3:23). The condition of the unregenerate sinner is one of being condemned by the Torah—“under the law” (3:23, NASU)—locked up in a prison of relative unrighteousness and certainly unforgiveness. With this in mind, Paul asserts “the law was put in charge to lead us to Messiah that we might be justified by faith” (3:24). The Torah’s teachings and instructions are to reveal the sin nature of a person (Romans 7:7-9), being responsible for revealing the need for a Savior.

So is it Paul’s intention that once such salvation is found, as the NIV renders it, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (3:25)? In describing the Torah as a “tutor” (NASU), Paul employs the classical term paidagōgos, one who was a household servant designed to lead young boys to and from school, protecting them. This “disciplinarian” (NRSV) or “guardian” (ESV) would try to instill in the boys a basic sense of who a responsible citizen was until the boys were old enough to take care of themselves (Plato Laws 7.809). The paidagōgos was no longer necessary when the young people reached an age of maturity. The principles taught by the tutor would now become second nature.

Does the Torah play any role for the redeemed Believer, who is “no longer under a tutor” (3:25, NASU)? Certainly it does play a role, because it is God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16). We need to understand the role of the Torah for born again Believers in the sense of how it “has become,” gegonen, “our tutor” (3:24, NASU). The perfect verb gegonen indicates that the training of the paidagōgos continues to have an effect throughout life. It has every bit as much of an effect as the fulfilled prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s arrival. When Matthew’s Gospel asserts, “All this took place [gegonen] to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet” (Matthew 1:22), are we expected to throw away and ignore Tanach or Old Testament Messianic prophecies now that they have been fulfilled via the Incarnation of Yeshua? Or are we to understand them in a new light? In a similar way, the role of the Torah is no longer one of “tutor” for the redeemed person.

No longer serving in the role of “tutor,” the Torah’s instructions for born again Believers should serve to aid their mission of being called to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). God’s people are called to be a missional community active in the world, making a difference—a mandate first given in the Torah (Genesis 12:2), and which does recognize obedience as important (Deuteronomy 4:6). In Yeshua the Messiah, all Believers are fellow sons and daughters of God (3:26), something realized via an identification of water immersion (3:27)—something anyone of either gender can partake, an identification with Yeshua in His death (Romans 6:3). The new status for human beings inaugurated by Yeshua’s sacrifice—and certainly something “to which the Law and the Prophets testify” (Romans 3:21)—is one of equality for Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, and females (3:28). Unlike the separation that took place in Antioch (2:11-16), the Apostle Paul wanted all united around the same table, “one in Messiah Yeshua” (3:28). All are to be recognized as recipients and beneficiaries of the promise originally given to Abraham (3:29)!

Paul includes a reference to both his and the Galatians’ common status prior to faith in Yeshua, with a new one to now be inaugurated. He compares the state of a non-Believer to being a child, yet as an heir who “owns the whole estate” (4:1). This minor child is a nēpios, someone who is silly and foolish, and who lives in bondage to sin (Romans 6:16-22). This state persists “until the time set by his father” (4:2b), previously being “subject to guardians and trustees” (4:2a), individuals who must see that the child is raised properly. While Paul could likely be employing the common Roman custom of patria potestas, when a Roman father would formally acknowledge his son as heir at a particular date—applying to the Galatians’ salvation experience and how they had entered into God’s purpose via his preaching to them—it applied equally to the experience of the Jewish Believers as well.

Paul can tell the Galatians, “also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world” (4:3). It is quite problematic to associate ta stoicheia tou kosmou or “the elemental things of the world” (NASU), as many interpreters do, as somehow God’s commandments actually being of the same substance as paganism. Paul was speaking of things that both Jewish and non-Jewish people of his time were subject to, particularly as it concerned the situation in Galatia. It is notable that elements of paganism had infected Paul’s First Century Judaism, such as the Hellenistic concept of Fate (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.172). The Galatian Believers would similarly need to be freed from “those who by nature are not gods” (4:8).

What came to free them from these things was Yeshua the Messiah: “when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights as sons” (4:5). Yeshua’s being born “under law” is a testament to His Incarnation as a human being, and the purpose of Him being sacrificed: “to redeem those under law.” Prior to encountering salvation in Yeshua, all either Paul or the Galatians could be is “confined under the law” (3:23, RSV) as unregenerate sinners. Yeshua’s sacrificial work has freed Believers from the Torah’s curse and penalties laid down upon them (3:13-14).[19] Having been freed from the dominion of sin, the Galatians were to have the Holy Spirit present in their lives, and be able to recognize themselves as heirs able to refer to God as their Abba (4:6-7).

Paul’s concern for the Galatians was that the Influencers leading them astray were leading them right back into the life they should have left behind. This is why many interpreters conclude that Paul now associates Judaism with paganism—yet it is not at all difficult, if pagan elements had influenced parts of the Synagogue, to see how the Influencers could be promoting a form of ancient Jewish mysticism. Paul observes how “when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are returning back to those weak and miserable principles. Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?” (4:8-9).

The “bankrupt elemental spirits” (REB) were things that the Galatians were affected by, because of the result of sin in the world. His worry for the Galatians is, “You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (4:10-11). These seem like the appointed times of Leviticus 23, and they may be the appointed times of Leviticus 23. But is Paul really concerned for the Galatians commemorating things like the Passover, which he instructed the Corinthians to celebrate (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)? Or, could it be that the appointed times advocated by the Influencers were infused with ungodly practices brought in via astrology?[20] Note how these people are said to not even keep the Torah they claim to uphold (6:13; cf. Deuteronomy 18:10-14). That Paul would have been concerned for the religious customs of the Influencers involved with their commemoration of the appointed times—mirroring pagan customs the Galatians should have left behind—is not at all impossible.

Rather than getting caught up in all of the confusion brought by the Influencers, Paul instead asks the Galatians, “Put yourselves in my place, my brothers, I beg you, for I have put myself in yours” (4:12, NEB), a need for them to imitate him the way that he imitates the Messiah (1 Corinthians 11:1). In getting all confused by the Influencers’ emphasis on “works of law,” or their sectarian halachah, they are likely to cause schisms that will deter the things they should instead be doing. Paul wants them to return to the spirit of hospitality that marked his visit to them. Paul was ill when he met the Galatians (4:13), and “Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Messiah Yeshua himself” (4:14). He asks the Galatians, “What has happened to all your joy?” (4:15a), as they would have even given him their own eyes (4:15b), further stating, “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (4:16).

The Apostle Paul wanted the Galatians—these new, non-Jewish Believers—to return to the path that he had set them on. He has honorable intentions, and is reminding them of the good times they had together. The Influencers, in contrast to this, are “people zealous to win you over, but for no good” (4:17a). “They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.” (4:17b, NRSV). Similar to how the Apostle Peter had shut out the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch, provoking the response on the part of Paul that they would have to “Judaize” (2:14, YLT) or convert as proselytes (cf. Esther 8:17) to join in—so do the Influencers isolate themselves from the Galatians to force them to admire them and seek them out. Now while Paul says that zeal is not always bad (4:18), the Galatians are not in a position to be considered spiritually mature. Almost as a mother giving birth, Paul tells the Galatians that “I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!” (4:19, ESV). He wishes he could be present with them in person “because I am perplexed about you!” (4:20).

If being “under the law” is a status for non-Believers in the clutches of sin (3:23; 4:4), then Paul’s words “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?” (4:21), serve as a form of ironic rebuke. If the Galatians follow after the agenda of the Influencers, adopting the sort of errant practices that they should have left behind in paganism (4:9), then they will find themselves “under the law” or subject to the Torah’s penalties.

To illustrate the circumstances in which the Galatians find themselves, Paul uses an analogy via the examples of Hagar and Sarah, and their respective sons of Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham’s “son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way” or “according to the flesh” (NASU), whereas “his son by the free woman was born according to the promise” (4:22). He says “These things may be taken figuratively” or “allegorically” (NASU), as “the two women represent two covenants” (4:23). The Mosaic Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai is depicted as being Hagar, “and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem” (4:23-25), for the specific reason “she is in slavery with her children” (4:25). The Heavenly Jerusalem corresponds to Sarah, this city “is free, and she is our mother” (4:26-27; cf. Isaiah 54:1). Believers in the Messiah Yeshua are likened unto Isaac, being children of promise (4:28). Just like Isaac was, they will be persecuted by those born according to the flesh (4:29; t.Sotah 6:6). What Hagar represents is to be removed (4:30; Genesis 21:10), because “we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman” (4:31).

In far too many interpretations of this passage, it is thought that the Sinai Covenant could only bring people into bondage to the Law—and the Apostle Paul wants God’s Torah booted out of the Galatian assemblies. But we need not forget how Abraham’s joining with Hagar, kata sarka or “according to the flesh,” is specified as being the issue here. This is where Abraham and Sarah thought they were fulfilling God’s promise to them via the birth of Ishmael (Genesis 16:2-4), when in fact this was a faithless act and demonstrated a lack of trust in God. It was only at a later point, when Abraham and Sarah had natural relations between themselves (Genesis 18:10-14), that the child of promise Isaac would be born. This is something that required a great deal of faith, considering how old they were (Hebrews 11:11).

The original intention of the Mosaic Covenant given at Mount Sinai to Ancient Israel was not intended to make slaves—and this is why Paul is very clear to specify that he associates the Mosaic Covenant with tē nun Ierousalēm or “the now/current Jerusalem” (my rendering). Paul is not disparaging the agreement made between Ancient Israel and God at Mount Sinai, as many conclude. Yet, Paul is making an observation in his present day that the Sinai Covenant as it was currently practiced by those in Jerusalem was proving to be insufficient—especially now that Yeshua the Messiah had come on the scene. Due to human error that had entered in between Sinai and the arrival of Yeshua, the Sinai Covenant was largely bearing children for slavery at the time of Paul, caused by the zealousness of people like the Influencers to go out and make ritual proselytes of the nations (cf. Matthew 23:15), misusing the Torah’s message. Ritual proselyte circumcision would do no more good than Abraham joining with Hagar!

Things have certainly changed with the arrival, sacrifice, resurrection, and then ascension of Yeshua into Heaven. It is hard to avoid that Paul is connecting the Jerusalem above with the New Covenant. The issue is how the Sinai Covenant—especially considering how it became abused by the First Century—has now naturally given way to the New Covenant as salvation history has progressed forward. It is enacted in the lives of God’s people via the trust they place in His Messiah. The essence of the New Covenant is that God’s Torah can be written on the hearts of His people via the power of the Holy Spirit. As Jeremiah had prophesied several centuries earlier, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33; cf. Hebrews 10:16). Ezekiel 36:26-27 concurs, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

Why is Paul’s approach in instructing the Galatians better than the Influencers’ approach? Because he is clearly going to teach the Galatians what the right priorities are. Just as Abraham and Sarah had relations at the natural time to conceive Isaac—“by the power of the Spirit” (4:29b)—so is Paul going to encourage the Galatians to follow the Holy Spirit and allow them to mature naturally in faith. This course will surely include obedience to God’s Law, but it will be an obedience brought at a steady, graded pace. In contrast to this, all the Influencers can bring the Galatians is a lifestyle not that unlike what they were to leave behind in paganism.

And how important is this? Paul tells the Galatians “It is for freedom that Messiah set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (5:1). Is this “yoke” one of “bondage” to God’s Torah, or is it being bound to sin? Here, Paul widely speaks of being “subject again” (NASU) to ta stoicheia tou kosmou (4:8) or the elemental things of the world—errant religious practices brought in by the Influencers, actually opposed by God’s Torah (6:13). In contrast to this is the implied directive to follow the Messiah’s “yoke” (Matthew 11:18-30), or the example that He demonstrated of obedience to His Father, something which surely did include the Torah (cf. Sirach 6:23-31; 51:23-26; m.Avot 3:5; m.Berachot 2:2).[21] Emulating Yeshua’s life of obedience, empowered by the Spirit—with love as a clear imperative (5:14)—should by no means be “slavery.”

The Influencers in Galatia were Jewish extremists, similar to Paul prior to His encounter with Yeshua on the road to Damascus. In advocating circumcision, they were in effect saying that expressing trust in Yeshua as the Messiah and Savior sent by God was not enough to be considered a member of God’s covenant people. Formal conversion to Judaism was necessary. Paul is quite direct with what he tells the Galatians: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Messiah will be of no value to you at all” (5:2). And then comes a very interesting phrase, “Again I declare to” not “every man”—but instead to panti anthrōpō or “every human being”[22]—“who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law” (5:3). Panti anthrōpō would have included females as well as males being “circumcised”—an indication that a mere medical procedure is not the main issue here, and that “circumcision” is indeed Paul’s shorthand for the ritual of a proselyte.

Galatians 5:3 can easily catch English readers off guard, because of how the Greek opheiletēs is usually rendered as something along the lines of “under obligation” (NASU) in most modern versions, i.e., “I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” This is usually taken to mean that only those who are formally converted to Judaism, and those who are native Jews, are expected to keep all of the commandments of the Torah. The term opheiletēs, though, is much better translated as “debtor,” as appearing in an older version like the KJV: “a debtor to do the whole law.” And, the term opheiletēs notably appears in the Lord’s Prayer, in the famed word, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12).

Consider how it is most probable that ancient Jewish groups would have required proselytes to make a vow to keep the whole Torah—and with it incur definite curses and penalties for Torah breaking—a precedent that had definitely been set by the returned exiles in Nehemiah 10:29.[23] Rather than Paul’s words communicating that only circumcised proselytes and native Jews were expected to keep the entire Torah, but instead that circumcised proselytes were making themselves debtors to perform all of the Torah’s demands—then if such people ever failed in their observance, they would effectively find themselves cut off from God’s own, subject to His wrath. The Qumran community notably required its members “to return to the Law of Moses” via “a binding oath” (1QS 5.9),[24] subsequent with curses and penalties if such an oath were broken, and no doubt followed by some close (and perhaps even unfair) scrutiny of one’s personal and private affairs.

This is not at all something Paul would have wanted to have happen to his Galatian friends—converting to Judaism as proselytes, and for them looking to something other than faith in Yeshua to be considered a member of God’s people. They thought that the Torah would be their source of proper standing before God. Claiming curses of Torah breaking, by going through a proselyte procedure, would merit a falling away from grace (5:4)—especially as Yeshua Himself has nullified the Torah’s curse (3:13).[25] And, disobeying the Torah’s instructions as limited mortals, would eventually happen. Paul wanted the Galatians to focus back on the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives (5:5), reminding them the essential truth that “in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (5:6). Whether one has undertaken the ritual of a proselyte or not does not matter if a faith evidenced by love is not present. And where would the Influencers be found expressing love? If they were encouraging the Galatians to love, then why did Paul have to speak against gross divisions present among them (5:15)?

The Galatians had been doing the right thing, but then outsiders came in and stalled their path (5:7). The Influencers’ “kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you” (5:8), being likened to leaven (5:9). But Paul is “confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be” (5:10). Paul, the zealous and overbearing Jew that he had once been prior to encountering the Lord, no longer preached “circumcision” or proselyte conversion as the means to entry among His people, recognizing instead the cross and faith in Yeshua as the entryway (5:11). This is something the Influencers did not see, and so Paul—frustrated as he was—wished “they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves” (5:12). Wishing they would cut their testicles off would render the inflexible Influencers inept for service unto God, which would have similarly disqualified Levitical priests (Leviticus 21:20-21; cf. 22:24).

In spite of the fact that Paul did not expect the Galatians to go through with the ritual proselyte circumcision offered by the Influencers—and instead continue to grow on a steady path—he warns them “do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature, rather, serve one another in love” (5:13). He emphasizes the most important commandment in the Torah: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14; Leviticus 19:18). This is actually not that different from how Rabbi Hillel, a generation earlier, said ‘“What is hateful to you, to your fellow don’t do.” That’s the entirety of the Torah; everything else is elaboration. So go, study’” (b.Shabbat 31a).[26] To think that the only attention the Apostle Paul wants the Galatians to give the Torah is to the “love commandment” is an inappropriate conclusion. A proper Torah observance begins with having love for God and one’s neighbor, sentiments that are surely seen in the Apostolic Scriptures (Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Romans 13:8, 10; cf. Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; John 13:34), and over time such obedience is expanded as one moves forward and is changed by God’s love.

The Influencers did not bring a positive message to the new Galatian Believers. If they did, then Paul would never have had to instruct them, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other” (5:15). They brought division and factionalism with their message of ritual proselyte circumcision. This is why Paul is insistent that their “works of law” do not bring miracles as does the Holy Spirit (3:5). The Holy Spirit filling God’s people “will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want” (5:16-17). It is interesting that Paul points out “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law” (5:18). Does this mean that with the Holy Spirit inside of a person, obedience to God’s Torah is unnecessary? Or does it mean that if one is truly led by the Holy Spirit, a person will not disobey God’s Law and suffer some kind of penalty for it? John Wesley answered this question over two centuries ago:

“Ye are not under the law—Not under the curse or bondage of it; not under the guilt or power of sin.”[27]

A contemporary theologian like Ben Witherington III actually draws the most foolish assumption, “Christians are no longer under the Law, not even under the moral law, as this context makes very clear.”[28] With such a word, even the Ten Commandments bear no relevance to modern-day evangelical Christians. Today’s Christian Church has certainly not benefitted from widely casting aside the Torah of Moses (even just the “moral law”), otherwise debates like homosexual ordination or the legality of abortion would not be raging. If Paul really considers being led by God’s Spirit, and obeying God’s Torah, to be polar opposites with one another—then what are we to make of the deeds of the flesh seen in 5:19-21? Are these not gross sins that are spoken against in the Torah and the Prophets? Would not a person meditating on Old Testament texts like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Amos, Lamentations, etc., see admonitions against these things?[29] Perhaps some need to remember what Paul says about the spirit and the flesh being in conflict with one another:

“The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (Romans 8:6-8).

What are some of the sins that are opposed by God’s Torah? Paul says “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:19-21). Any person in Galatia, with a cursory knowledge of God’s Law, would have known that these sins were condemned. The other sinful categories that Paul lists are clearly derived from concepts seen in the Tanach, and would have been spoken against in the mainline Jewish schools of the day. It is utterly ridiculous of any interpreter to suggest that Paul’s categories of “works of the flesh” are not derived from the Torah and Tanach and Paul’s own Jewish training.

It is interesting that Paul would take the time to list high sins, clearly things prohibited by the Torah, in his rebuke to the Galatians. Surely Paul cannot be opposed to the Torah when we consider the penalties merited for sexual perversions, idolatry, sorcery, etc. But why does Paul list these things as “works of the flesh”? Is it possible that as the Influencers have stressed their “works of law” or their style of halachah, that Paul is actually comparing them to “works of the flesh”? If so, is there an aspect of the Influencers’ behavior or (private) lifestyle that can be overlooked? If Paul can later say that they do not even keep the Torah they claim to uphold (6:13), then what kind of people were they really? What did they do when they shut themselves out (4:17)? Perhaps it is best that the silence in Paul’s letter only implies that such Influencers were not too honorable...

Being filled with the Holy Spirit of God requires a person to demonstrate proper behavior. And so Paul says, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (5:23-24). The Holy Spirit, while aligning one’s character to the standard of holiness seen in the Torah, is going to go beyond the Torah. So while the Torah can only define acceptable and unacceptable behavior, the Spirit will conform and mold people to such acceptable behavior, and provide solutions where faith is absolutely necessary (3:12a). Paul asserts, “Those who belong to Messiah Yeshua have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”

The Holy Spirit is to mold men and women of God to be mutually accountable to one another: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself or you also may be tempted” (6:1). Why is this so important? Paul gives a very unique answer. “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Messiah” (6:2). Many theologians assert that this “law of Christ” is something completely independent—if not divorced—from God’s Torah. They often say it is just love. Yet, in order to define this “law of Christ” as something beyond some vague “love,” they are often forced to Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chs. 5-7)—our Lord’s dissertation on what it actually means for His followers to “fulfill the Law”! As Messianics, we should by no means discount the priority of the commandments Yeshua lists in the Sermon on the Mount, after saying that His purpose was not to abolish the Torah (Matthew 5:17-19). His teaching does largely instruct us how to bear each other’s burdens—demonstrating that we are transformed people by His love—and we need not forget it! Paul says that none of us are to think of one another as being better than one another (6:4-5).

About as close as Paul gets in this letter to encouraging the Galatians to financially support his efforts is seen in his reminder to them, “Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor” (6:6). The Galatians cannot forget how Paul was the one who introduced them to the Messiah, and who started their training in faith. Were the Influencers going to actually help them, or hurt them? The need for the Holy Spirit to work through them is apparent as Paul says, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life” (6:7-8). Paul’s words to the Galatians are clear: “Let us not become weary in doing good” (6:9a). In Messiah Yeshua, Believers are to find themselves doing good to all—especially those of the community of faith (6:10).

The Epistle to the Galatians ends with Paul actually writing the final verses in his own handwriting (6:11-18), as he has presumably used a secretary to compose his letter thus far (6:11). He expresses how the motives of the Influencers are not good. They want the Galatians to go through ritual proselyte circumcision “to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Messiah” (6:12b), either because they were receiving criticism from the Synagogue at large, or if the Influencers were and/or included recent converts to Judaism, from local practitioners of the Emperor cult in the province of Galatia.

Ironically enough, “Not even those who are circumcised”—the Influencers in Galatia themselves—“obey the law” they claim to be upholding (6:13a). Were they simply not concerned about weightier matters that dealt with justice and righteousness? Does it indicate that the Influencers were primarily non-Jewish, and that they were incapable of keeping the Torah, because they had yet to be really trained in its instruction? Were they a part of a fringe sect within Second Temple Judaism, which advocated mystical and proto-Gnostic views opposed to the Torah, yet were embedded in their “Torah observance”? What we know for certain is that the text tells us, “they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh” (6:13b). They did advocate things that took people off of the standard of holiness exemplified in God’s Torah.

Paul’s motivation, contrary to this, is “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:14), as “what counts is a new creation” (6:15) of human beings in Him. This new creation is to have “Peace and mercy,” being considered “the Israel of God” (6:16; cf. Ephesians 2:11-12). The Apostle Paul’s work among the nations to see this “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15b, NRSV/CJB) come forth is quite serious, as he testifies to the Galatians, “for I bear on my body the marks of Yeshua” (6:17; Acts 14:19). The Influencers could testify to no such physical abuse. Paul ends his letter with the closing word, “The grace of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah be with your spirit, brothers. Amen” (6:18). He finishes with a recognition of the Galatians as his “brothers and sisters” (TNIV).

A view of Galatians as not being the Apostle Paul’s definitive treatise against following the Law of Moses—as is frequently concluded in today’s Christianity—and instead an admonition against the non-Jewish Galatians becoming Jewish proselytes, does engage with information in Biblical Studies that previous generations did not possess. It places the letter in its ancient First Century context. It addresses Paul’s usage of “works of law” as relating to the halachah of an ancient religious community or sect. It recognizes faith in Israel’s Messiah, and not the ritual of a proselyte, as the determining factor for entry among God’s people. It does better justice to what the later Jerusalem Council would rule about the inclusion of the new, non-Jewish Believers. More than anything else, it recognizes that Paul is not opposed to the Torah of Moses—but he is very much opposed to its misuse. One can actually be found violating the Torah if a person is not concerned with the gospel as originally proclaimed to Abraham, something written down and quite obvious to anyone who studies the Torah with zeal (3:8, 10b; Genesis 12:2-3).

A significant part of today’s Messianic community is struggling through the same issues faced in Galatians. The majority of today’s Messianics, including a sizeable part of mainstream Messianic Judaism, were not born or raised Jewish. In order to be recognized as equal brothers and sisters within the ekklēsia, is it necessary that these people go through some kind of a conversion procedure? According to Paul, they do not need it—as people of other nationalities and women were the equals of Jews and men in the Lord (3:28). It is by the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah (2:16) or His work for us at Golgotha (Calvary), that we are to all be considered a part of His people. We are to be united around this hope as the entryway for anyone wishing to be included. This faithfulness is something that He has demonstrated for all of us, versus any kind of human action or sectarian “works of law” that can be performed. Obedience to God is surely important—specifically adherence to the Torah as the Messiah demonstrated it (6:2)—but it comes as a result of “believ[ing] what you heard” (3:5) as we emulate Him.

It is difficult for many to make a shift in their thinking to recognizing: (1) “righteousness” or “justification” in Galatians can include a corporate status as being a member of God’s people; (2) “circumcision” in Galatians being not so much an emphasis on a physical operation, but instead is more of an emphasis on the ritual of becoming a proselyte to Judaism; and (3) “works of the law” do not concern obedience to God’s Torah, as much as they concern a specific way of following the Torah as determined by a sectarian Jewish group These factors make the Epistle to the Galatians extremely significant for a developing and maturing Messianic movement that is struggling with the issue of non-Jewish inclusion, and learning how it can fulfill the original mandate given to Israel (Genesis 12:2; Deuteronomy 4:6). If we substitute this Biblical mandate with our own “works of law,” do we run the risk of incurring penalties from the Lord (3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26)?

Many Christians who encounter this view of Galatians will have difficulty with it, because few laypersons attempt to read the text from its ancient First Century setting. They will still interpret Galatians as Paul being deathly afraid for his audience adopting a life of Torah observance, something that they believe today’s Messianics have likewise errantly done. Keep in mind that regardless of how we interpret Galatians, that they will still probably be critical toward us. Let us do our best to not fall prey to the stereotypes that they hold of the foolish Galatians, and instead may we live as people who diligently fulfill “the Torah's true meaning, which the Messiah upholds” (6:2, CJB). Let us love others (5:14), and make sure that we are always demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-25). If we can do this and demonstrate that belief in Yeshua and obedience to God’s Torah are not polar opposites, then we can show ourselves to be children of the Jerusalem above (5:26), those who have the New Covenant enacted within their lives and are led by the Holy Spirit.[30]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 8

[1] This chapter is reproduced from J.K. McKee, Galatians for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012).

[2] These positions are well summarized in Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp 22-87.

[3] For a general review, you should peruse the following books: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977); James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990); The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).

[4] Cf. Harold G. Stigers, “tzadeq,” in TWOT, 2:754.

[5] This is realized in 5:3 when Paul speaks of panti anthrōpō or “every human being” circumcised, employing the generic anthrōpos, and not the male specific anēr. We have ample cause to consider the “circumcision” addressed in Galatians to be the ritual of a proselyte and not a medical operation. In First Century Judaism, one’s “circumcision” became a significant sign of identity that one was a Jew.

For a further summary consult T.R. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 138.

[6] F.F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 42.

[7] Hans Dieter Betz, “Galatians, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 2:872 summarizes, “The literary genre and composition of Galatians have much in common with Romans. Both are apologies; but while Galatians is short and confrontational, representing the beginning of a controversy, Romans is conciliatory and greatly expanded, showing an advanced stage of debate in which Paul defends his theology as a whole by elaborate arguments formulating and even revising positions taken in Galatians.”

[8] Walter C. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 259; cf. James W. Thompson, “Works,” in EDB, 1387.

[9] Consult N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp 26-29.

Wright actually concludes that prior to encountering the Lord, Paul was an extremely zealous Shammaite Pharisee, not that unlike the Torah student Yigal Amir who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.

[10] Heb. MT uses the verb avad.

[11] Cf. Psalm 10:9; 12:5; 14:6; Isaiah 3:14-15; 10:1-2; 58:6-7; Amos 8:4-6.

[12] “And many among the peoples of the land became Jews [yahad], for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them” (Esther 8:17b).

[13] Consult the article “The Faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah,” appearing in the book The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee, for an examination of the different grammatical nuances at work here.

[14] A somewhat open approach for Jews eating with non-Jews is seen in m.Avodah Zera 5:5; a closed approach is seen in m.Ohalot 18:7; and the common Roman approach to the Jewish customs is seen in Tacitus Histories 5.5.1-2; Juvenal Satires 14.95-104.

[15] I mention the example of “today’s West” as a New Testament professor I had at Asbury Seminary once recalled an exchange he witnessed between a British Bible scholar, and Kenyan seminary students. The British scholar dismissed any connection between “bewitched” (3:1) and errant religious practices, whereas the Kenyan students—living in an indigenous culture where witchdoctors were the norm—forced him to think about some things he had never considered before.

[16] Obedience via “hearing” is only to be expected of the Galatians when akoē is understood with the Semitic shama in mind.

[17] BDAG, 45 indicates how the conjunction alla may mark “a transition to someth. new…other matter for additional consideration,” as the author’s rendering has chosen to translate it here with “yet.”

[18] Ibid., 885.

[19] Bruce, Galatians, 196 concurs, “To be redeemed from existence ‘under law’ is to be redeemed from ‘the curse of the law’ (3:13).”

[20] Samuel J. Mikolaski, “Galatians,” in D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1100 comments, “Are these Jewish or pagan observances? In writing to the Galatians, Paul clearly has Judaizers in mind. Did these worship elemental spirits? Astrological elements were at times infused into Jewish as well as pagan practices. The elemental spirits of this age refer probably to the ethos of an age traceable in part to pagan astrological mythology, but which had become a religious habit as much as, and perhaps more than, a metaphysical system.”

As the relatively new Wesley Study Bible notes indicate: “[Galatians 4:9-10] may refer to religious calendar observances that involve the movement of stars and planets, often believed in the ancient world to be controlled by spirits” (Joel B. Green, ed. [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009], 1428).

[21] Also see “yoke of the Torah,” in Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 684.

[22] Or “every person” (Kingdom New Testament).

[23] “Now the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the temple servants and all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the law of God, their wives, their sons and their daughters, all those who had knowledge and understanding, are joining with their kinsmen, their nobles, and are taking on themselves a curse and an oath to walk in God's law, which was given through Moses, God's servant, and to keep and to observe all the commandments of GOD our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes” (Nehemiah 10:28-29).

[24] Wise, Abegg, and Cook, 132.

[25] For a further summary, consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Galatians 5:2-3” (reproduced in this publication’s section on “FAQs on the Torah”).

[26] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary.

[27] Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, 697.

[28] Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 396.

[29] Cf. Tim Hegg, A Study of Galatians (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2002), 202 for a chart and detailed summary of each one of the sins listed in 5:19-21.

[30] For a further examination, consult the commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

-9-

The Message of Romans 2010

J.K. McKee

It is not at all difficult for a Bible reader to see how Romans can be classified as the most influential letter ever written in human history. Romans certainly stands as the single longest, most detailed, and most eloquent of the Pauline Epistles. It is the Apostle Paul’s magnum opus. It is undeniable that Romans is an intellectual and philosophical masterpiece, but Romans also challenges readers and thinkers on many different levels. Romans also possesses a long history of interpretation that has not only affected how theologians have developed doctrines such as justification by faith or the role of sanctification, but how their thoughts have in turn affected contemporary philosophies and governmental structures for the past 2,000 years. As an undergraduate political science student in 2001, I recall having to examine how parts of Romans affected John Calvin’s theology, which in turn affected the Protestant Reformation and the growth of Western European democracy. Yet we need not digress too much about the long-lasting effects of Romans…

Our interest in the Epistle to the Romans should be focused on how we understand the text as a whole, and specifically for how it may affect us as the emerging Messianic movement. Romans teaches us important things about the relationship of Jew and non-Jew in the Body of Messiah, and some of the ancient factionalism, divisions, and pride that the Apostle Paul wanted to see jettisoned from among the Roman Believers. How does he address parts of his letter to the Jewish Believers in Rome, and address parts of it to the non-Jewish Believers in Rome? Today’s Messianics frequently have questions and criticisms lodged at them from Romans about their Torah observant convictions, many of which can be fairly addressed if we read Romans closely and not try to rush through. None of us needs to be criticized from a letter that is actually not too difficult to understand. We need to see Paul’s message of how all are sinners in the eyes of God, that any unnecessary divisions present among His people should be removed, and that all Believers are interdependent and must rely on one another.

Have we ever sat down as Messianics and read what Romans was as a First Century letter, written to a specific ancient audience, with a specific purpose? What kind of observations should we make from reading the letter? What kind of intertextuality is seen in Romans, with quotations and appeals made to the Tanach (i.e., Psalms, Isaiah, Deuteronomy)? What did the letter ask its ancient recipients? What does the letter ask us today? What is the message of Romans?

Much unlike his earlier letter of Galatians, Paul’s letter to the Romans was written to a group of people whom he had never met. The good Apostle entrusted the epistle to “our sister Phoebe” (16:1-2), who would not only transport the letter to the Roman Believers and their assemblies, but be able to assist all the brothers and sisters (16:3-16) who would hear it and perhaps need clarifications. (We would certainly all like to know her explanations of Paul’s letter!) It is rightfully thought that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans as a letter of self-promotion, as his ministry work in the Eastern Mediterranean had relatively ended (15:19-20), and it was now time to begin ministry work in the Western Mediterranean (15:23-24, 28). Paul would need a base of operations and support, much like Antioch or Ephesus had served him in the East, and so Rome with a large Jewish population and community of Believers was an obvious choice (15:29) for the West. Yet, the Roman Believers—although having heard of Paul—would need to know some things about him and his teachings, presented in a series of vignettes. This is one of the major reasons why Romans is so detailed among the Pauline letters.

The opening chapters of the Epistle to the Romans speak in theological generalities, which give readers a significant view into how the Apostle Paul approached the world around him. Paul asserts his apostleship as originating from God (1:1), the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah as being deeply rooted in the Tanach Scriptures (1:2), that Yeshua is the expected Deliverer of Israel (1:3-4), and that the Messiah’s arrival necessitates Paul “to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5), something that included the Romans (1:6-7). Paul eagerly desires to visit the Roman Believers (1:8-12), expressing how “I planned many times to come to you…in order that I might have a harvest among you” (1:13). Now, the time for his going to Rome to proclaim the gospel and instruct the Believers had come (1:14-15), as Paul expresses “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (1:16). The significance of the gospel is seen in that it is “a righteousness from God,” as faith in God is to control how the redeemed live their lives (cf. Habakkuk 2:4).

Where does the gospel begin for Paul? It begins in understanding the reality of human sin from which all suffer. The Creator God has revealed Himself to all of humankind via His handiwork, causing all people to be “without excuse” (1:18-20). In spite of the goodness of God, though, the world at large “neither glorified God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (1:21). Instead of expressing worship and thanks to God, idolatry prevailed (1:22-23, 25). Consequently in rejecting Him, God gave the nations over to “the sinful desires of their hearts,” notably including “sexual impurity” (1:24) and homosexuality (1:26-27). Paul’s line of reasoning in describing the gross sins committed (1:28-32) was quite consistent with common Jewish views of the day, which depicted the Gentiles as little more than sexually immoral idolaters (Wisdom of Solomon 14:12; Testament of Naphtali 3:4; Psalm 106:20).

Even though the nations will be condemned by God for these gross sins, this does not mean that people who know (of) God and His righteousness—Paul’s own Jewish brethren—will not likewise be held accountable, and that they somehow get a free pass. “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (2:1). These words indicate that some of the Jewish people have dabbled in the same gross sins at one point in their lives. Harsh judgment of others—a job reserved for the Almighty—will only be a self-condemning exercise (2:2-3). As terrible as sin may be, it is “God’s kindness [which] leads you to repentance” (2:4). Regardless of whether a person is a Jew or not, the unrepentant will be justly punished by God for their sins (2:5-11; cf. Psalm 62:12).

Those who are outside a life of Torah, total pagans, and those inside a life of Torah, here most specifically the Jewish people, will be judged (2:12).[1] Those who possess and know the Torah are to surely recognize the importance of doing it to be recognized as God’s own (2:13). This is because those who have God’s Torah and follow it will be held to a much higher standard than those who do not, intensifying the need for any of the Jewish Believers in Rome to be careful in their condemnation of others. Paul reminds the Romans how that nations “who do not have the law,” can still “do by nature the things required by the law” because the Creator God has given them a conscience, with “their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (2:14-15). Much can be shown to surprise more than a few of the Jewish Believers in God’s dealings with the nations (2:16). Some of the nations—people once perceived as totally lost pagans—may be shown to live lives worthy of entering into His restored Kingdom by having accepted Him via His natural revelation (cf. 1:19-20). And some of the Jewish people, having once condemned all such people as worthless barbarians, may find themselves condemned because of bad attitudes. This is why Paul designates all of this as “the secret thoughts of all” (2:16, NRSV).

Paul explains how the Jewish people, who in his day were the prime owners of God’s Torah, have an extreme responsibility placed upon them (2:17-29). He asks, “if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?” (2:19-21a). Those who teach from God’s Torah cannot act as though the Torah’s standard of holiness does not apply to themselves as well (2:21b-22), as he asks “You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23). It can be easy to forget some of the Torah’s significant imperatives, and while possessing the Torah actually be found to be breaking it. This is why Paul appealed to Isaiah 52:5 and Ezekiel 36:20: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

In the First Century, possession of God’s Torah had become a source of great pride for many of the Jewish people—and Jewish possession of the Torah had caused many to forget that the Torah universally condemned all as sinners before Him. Paul reminds the Romans, “Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised” (2:25). Those who are uncircumcised, yet keep the things that those who are circumcised have broken, are as though they have been circumcised (2:26-27). Physical circumcision to the Jewish person is to remind him of the need to be circumcised of heart (2:28), because “Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God” (2:29).

While Paul wants the Jewish Believers in Rome to realize that their Jewish pedigree does not grant them special favors before God, this by no means makes him a turncoat Jew. He does not think that the Jewish people somehow do not possess a great value and unique calling by God. Paul writes, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way!” (3:1-2a). Even “if some did not have faith,” this does not by any means “nullify God’s faithfulness” (3:2b-3; cf. Psalm 116:11; 51:4), as His promises and faithful actions remain secure. God called Paul’s Jewish brethren and remained faithful to them. Yet God is not unjust in judging His own chosen people for their sin, because if He were “how could God [then] judge the world?” (3:5-6). All are human and subject to the penalties of sin. And, simply because the faithlessness of people can enhance God’s faithfulness and truth, does not all of a sudden mean that sinners will not be punished by Him as faithless people are used to accomplish His tasks (3:7-8).

For Paul, the fact that “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin [hup’ hamartian]” (3:9) is something that the Tanach gives ample testimony to (3:10-18; cf. Psalm 14:1-4; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; 36:1). The Torah speaks to those who are in it (en tō nomō), with the specific reason “so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God” (3:19), indicating that the entire human race—Jewish and non-Jewish people alike—will somehow be punished for their violation of it (cf. Isaiah 24:5). The intention for God giving the Torah not only to the Jewish people, but for the world, is not so that it would be turned into “works of the Law” or some kind of sectarian identity barriers (3:20a, NASU; 4QMMT), but “rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (3:20b).

In Romans 3:21 Paul asserts, “now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known.” Here, it is best for us to understand righteousness (Heb. tzedaqah; Grk. dikaiosunē) in its sense of pertaining to God’s vindication, covenant faithfulness, and saving activity. (In this context, righteousness would not be dissimilar from the Psalmist’s cry, “Answer me when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress” [Psalm 4:1].) God’s righteousness has been made known in something apart from the story of the Torah—which up to this point would have largely been defined for the Jewish people in terms of the Exodus from Egypt—although Paul is very clear that such a righteous event is something “to which the Law and the Prophets testify” (3:21b). It is “a righteousness that comes from God, through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah[2]” (3:22a, CJB), meaning the faithful actions of Yeshua to die on the cross for human sins (3:25-26), prophesied and attested by the Tanach Scriptures (cf. 1:2). This is something available “to all who believe,” because as Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).

Boasting, because all have sinned, is something that is not possible (3:27). One’s identity is not to be found in sectarian-defined “works of the Law” (3:28), but instead a person placing his or her trust in the actions accomplished by the Lord. “Works of the Law,” which either marked out ancient Jewish sects and denominations or defined their halachah, is not what is to justify people and mark them as members of God’s people. Rather, the faithfulness of Yeshua at Golgotha is to mark them, as “there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (3:30).[3] Yet the Apostle Paul made it clear that God’s Torah was not all of a sudden unimportant: “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (3:31), in light of the faithfulness of Yeshua which we are to surely strive to emulate.

Paul found it necessary to remind the Jewish Believers in Rome about the life of Abraham, specifying how Abraham was justified not in the actions he performed, but rather from his faith and steadfast trust in God (4:1-3; cf. Genesis 15:6). One’s righteousness before God is not to be given to him as wages due a paid laborer (4:4), but the one who is forgiven from sin because of faith placed in Him (4:5-8; cf. Psalm 32:1-2). The status of being justified/righteous is available for anyone, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, because Abraham was considered righteous before being given the covenant of circumcision (4:9-10). At a later time as Abraham continued in God’s covenant with him, he was then circumcised (4:11a), being the patriarch of both uncircumcised and circumcised (4:11b-12). Trust in the unseen God preceded any other action, as God’s blessing of Abraham came because of his faith in Him (4:13). Such a promise—the promise of the Messiah to come—is brought by faith, because the purpose of God’s Torah is to principally define human sin and transgression (4:14-15).

Paul teaches how the promise of the Messiah “comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all of Abraham’s offspring” (4:16)—all in the Body of Messiah (4:16b) who are connected to Abraham in many different ways (Galatians 3:29; Genesis 17:5). It comes to the Jew who already possesses God’s Torah, but also to the non-Jew who begins his faith by emulating the example of Abraham (4:17a). This promise comes from a great and powerful God “who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were” (4:17b). Via Abraham’s steadfast trust he saw Isaac conceived (4:18-20), “being fully persuaded that God had the power to do what he had promised,” and “This is why ‘it was credited to him as righteousness’” (4:21, 22; Genesis 15:6). Paul says that all are affected by Abraham’s model of faith (4:23), because just as Abraham had to believe that the child of promise would come forth from Sarah and he, so must Believers in the Messiah “believe in him who raised Yeshua our Lord from the dead” (4:24), being the Source of our justification (4:25).

What has the justification—principally a forgiveness of sins and identity as God’s own—brought? “[W]e have peace with God through our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand” (5:1b-2). The faith placed in the work of the Lord Yeshua gives God’s people the perseverance that a Believer needs to endure the trials of life (5:3-4), and it includes God’s love made manifest to them via the presence of His Holy Spirit (5:5). Yeshua, unlike any other person, died for the ungodly (5:6-8). Yeshua’s sacrifice assures a person deliverance from God’s wrath, and complete reconciliation with Him (5:9-11).

If the Jewish Believers in Rome had not yet been convinced that as far as sin goes, they were no better off than the pagans around them—Paul’s comments about Adam would have been most direct: “[S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (5:12).[4] Here, there is no kind of delineation between Jewish sin and everyone else’s sin. Paul’s remark that follows, though, can be a bit confusing to understand, as he actually says “for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law” (5:13). This would be speaking of a condition prior to Mount Sinai, where instructions regulating the atonement and punishment of sin were finally delivered and codified (Galatians 3:19). Prior to Mount Sinai, while such sins existed, there was no definite way to account for all of them, even though “death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses” (5:14), because high sins will inevitably have their negative affects made manifest in one way or another (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5).

If all human beings are affected by the sin of Adam, then “how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Yeshua the Messiah, overflow to the many!” (5:15). Yeshua is compared to being a Second Adam—One without sin who came to resolve the human sin problem. Paul tells the Romans, “For if, by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Yeshua the Messiah” (5:17). The faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah is exemplified by Paul, as “through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (5:19). When the Torah was given by God to Israel, trespasses inevitably increased (5:20a). “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord” (5:20b-21). The Torah came to regulate sin and define God’s standard of holiness, so that the final atonement via the Lord Yeshua could be made manifest.

Paul is very clear to answer any potential objections that the Romans may ask, especially in his assertion that while human sin increased, God’s grace also increased. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer” (6:1-2). The Believer who has been transformed by the gospel, having been immersed in water, is to be identified in Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection—specifically so that “we…may live a new life” (6:3-4). The kind of “death” that Believers have experienced is one of death to sin and its hold (6:5-6), “because anyone who has died has been freed from sin” (6:7). The redeemed are called to emulate the Messiah, who died and rose again, and who modeled the life of sinlessness that those in Him are to emulate (6:8-10). Paul summarizes, “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Messiah Yeshua” (6:11), as people are to “not offer the parts of [their] bod[ies] to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but…to God, as those who have been brought from death to life” (6:12-13).

Paul qualifies the status of a redeemed person by stating, “sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (6:14). When sin is a person’s lord and owner, such a status results in one being “under law.” When one has been reconciled to God through Yeshua, the contrasting status is one being “under grace.” People who are “under law” stand judged by God’s Torah and subject to its penalties. People who are “under grace” stand forgiven before God.

Paul anticipates how some may ask, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?” (6:15). If the penalties of God’s Torah have been removed for the redeemed, would it not be possible to then sin and not worry about it? Paul properly answers, “By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves as someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (6:15-16). When the Roman Believers were “under law” they were also “slaves to sin” (6:17). But being redeemed, they were “set free from sin and” became “slaves to righteousness” (6:18). And notably, being “under grace” here does include obedience to God! Paul’s analogy to slavery in comparing the status of non-Believers “under law” and Believers “under grace” is described as being “human terms” (6:19-22), something that he would obviously expect the Jewish Believers in Rome to understand, but more specifically the non-Jewish Believers (who could very likely have included many people from the slave class).

Paul’s teaching in Romans 7 is likely the most confusing and/or difficult part of the letter for today’s Messianics to understand, often because it is interpreted from an inappropriate anti-Torah bias. Paul is very clear in the offset, “for I am speaking to men who know the law” (7:1a), yet too frequently knowing something about the Torah’s instructions does not often play a role in how contemporary interpreters view his words. Having just described the death of Believers to sin, Paul asserts, “that the law has authority over [lords it over, LITV] a man as long as he lives” (7:1b). Depicting the Torah as a master over a person, existence “under law” (cf. 6:14-14) or being subject to its harsh condemnation is in view. Redeemed individuals have died to sin, and the authority of the Torah to condemn is something that they have been released from.

To illustrate this important point, the Apostle Paul makes use of the Torah’s regulations regarding marriage. He says, “by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage” (7:2). This is not the Torah as a whole, but rather demonstrates how a particular part of its instructions become non-applicable. The “law of marriage” is being compared to the condemnation of the Torah upon sinners, and its subsequent death penalty.

The married woman would be an adulteress if she took another man, but she would not be an adulteress if she remarried as a widow (7:3). In a similar way, Paul can say, “So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Messiah”—an obvious reference to His crucifixion for sin—“that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead” (7:4). Paul does not say that Believers have died to the standard of God’s holiness in His Law, but rather that the Torah as a harsh, condemning overlord to sinners is what Believers have been made dead to. This was a life controlled by sinful passions, and “by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit” (7:5-6). This new way causes the redeemed to properly “uphold the law” (3:31) as a part of the New Covenant brought by God’s Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Paul by no means associates God’s Torah and human sin as being synonymous, anticipating that some might conclude he associates a life controlled by sin to be a life controlled by the Torah. To this he asserts, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!” (7:7a).

From 7:7b-8:1 we see a variety of “I” statements made regarding the role of God’s Law. Many Romans interpreters read this as some kind of autobiographical summary and/or personal confessions made by Paul. Many others, though, have come to think of this “I” as a hypothetical sinner, with the Apostle Paul employing an ancient form of rhetoric such as prosopopeia.[5] (I too am personally inclined to think that Paul is not speaking of himself.) We must notably recognize that the sin problem targeted here is covetousness (7:8; Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21), but Paul’s principal sin problem was actually murder (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:23). Furthermore, Paul will later admonish the Romans to overcome evil (12:21), yet the sinner depicted in this section still struggles with sin (7:17-20). Surely, the status of a person struggling with sin on the way to salvation, or a new Believer still maturing in faith yet giving himself an excuse to sin, should give us enough reason to reassess whether Paul is really speaking about himself here, as the great Apostle would actually portray himself as spiritually immature.

This “I” sinner testifies how sin is shown to be sin via God’s Torah, and in being shown to be sin, sin can take advantage of a situation (7:7-8). In the case of the covetous person, “Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died” (7:9). Disobedience to God’s Law brings an existence of death and condemnation. The sinner discovers “that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death” (7:10), not because of the commandment, but because of sin (7:11). Paul is very clear to specify how “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (7:12), yet how “through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful” (7:13). God’s Torah provides a clear standard of righteousness that exposes sin to be the problem that it truly is.

This “I” sinner further states how “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave of sin” (7:14). He is conflicted, doing disobedient things he does not want to do, and not doing the obedient things that he wants to do (7:14-15)—all the while recognizing “that the law is good” (7:16). The presence of sin in his life causes disobedience to God’s Torah (7:17-20). The principle at work for this person is, “When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war” (7:21-23). The question that this “I” sinner asks is, “Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (7:24). All he can answer to this is, “Thanks be to God—through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord!” (7:25).

Yeshua provides the answer to the conflicted sinner, a person who wants to obey God, but not quite able to do so (7:25b). The person feels continually condemned, but is able to come to the point where “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua, because through Messiah Yeshua the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death” (8:1-2). Not infrequently, the usage of nomos or “law” can be viewed as akin to “principle,” which would not at all be inappropriate—yet another way of looking at this would be God’s Torah guided by His Spirit, set against God’s Torah in conflict with a sinner’s fallen nature. Either way we look at it, “what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering” (8:3). The Torah on its own is clearly not enough for a person, but once atonement for sin was provided, “the righteous requirements of the law [can] be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature,” or the flesh, “but according to the Spirit” (8:4). God’s Torah still plays a definite role for the redeemed person who acknowledges the sacrifice of Yeshua that takes away sin.

Paul discusses what the new life guided by God’s Spirit is all about, contrasting it to the old life guided by sin (8:5-8). Most notably, “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (8:7). People who have been regenerated by God’s Spirit possess the ability to belong to Him, and live a life that reflects a true child of God (8:9-14). Paul tells the Romans, “you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (8:15-16), able to inherit great things (8:17). Even though there may be some temporary hardships and persecutions to experience, each Believer is a part of a great redemption to come, involving the resurrection and restoration of the Created order (8:18-25). In the meantime, “the Spirit helps us in our weaknesses” as we might find how “We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express” (8:26).

A redeemed life, while surely involving obedience to God, also involves the significant presence of His Spirit to guide and direct Believers. This enables God’s people to be overcomers and conquerors when they face challenges (8:27-37; Psalm 42:22). For Paul, “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present time nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Messiah Yeshua our Lord” (8:37-39). Any Believer, whether one of the Romans or someone today, must come to a similar conclusion in his or her life, confirmed by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

For many past Romans interpreters, their engagement level with the text of Paul’s letter would significantly decrease after chapter 8, with chs. 9-16 not being given the same degree of attention as chs. 1-8. All too often, this was because the Epistle to the Romans was primarily not viewed as being a letter written to a First Century group of Believers, but instead was viewed as written primarily as a doctrinal treatise. While no one can easily deny the unique doctrinal qualities of Romans among the letters of the Pauline corpus, more modern interpreters have rightly recognized the value of chs. 9-16, and in particular what it communicates about the relationship that non-Jewish Believers have toward Israel and the Jewish people.

Romans chs. 9-11 are probably the most reviewed and considered part of Paul’s letter by today’s Messianics, precisely because they speak to the relationship of Jew and non-Jew within the Messiah’s Body, what God’s purpose was in choosing Israel, and what to do with the reality that—in Paul’s day—many Jewish people were rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah. Whereas some parts of Paul’s letter thusfar seem to be addressed more to the Jewish Believers in Rome, answering some of their possible questions and/or critiques, much of the remaining letter addresses potential questions that would be asked from the non-Jewish Believers in Rome.

The Apostle Paul expresses great distress—“great sorrow and unceasing anguish” (9:2)—because of the current condition of his own Jewish people. He actually wishes “that I myself were cursed and cut off from Messiah for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race” (9:3). He identifies them as “the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs is the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (9:4), also pointing out “from them is traced the human ancestry of Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!” (9:5). While later Paul will weave in some Tanach passages, describing the restoration of Israel and how the salvation of the nations is definitely involved, he absolutely considers his own Jewish people to constitute “Israel,” in spite of their challenges. Even with the redeemed from the nations to be grafted-in to Israel’s olive tree (11:16-17), and thusly a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13) or Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), he always recognizes the honor of his physical brethren being “Israel.” Non-Jewish Believers are more properly regarded as being fellow citizens in an expanded Kingdom realm of Israel (cf. Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:15-18).

The subject of the Jewish people is a difficult one for Paul. He expresses to the Romans how “It is not as though God’s word has failed,” but then observes how “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6), here depicting an Israel that composes the redeemed of faith and not just an ethnic community. He similarly states how, “Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children” (9:7), because only those who partake of God’s promise—the promise of the Messiah—can be considered actual “offspring” (9:8-9), regardless of their ethnicity.

The verses that finish Romans ch. 9 have often too largely been read through a Calvinistic grid of God choosing or electing some individuals for salvation, and other individuals for damnation. This idea could have been quite foreign to First Century Jews, who saw election more in terms of their ethnicity guaranteeing them a place in God’s Kingdom (m.Sanhedrin 10:1). A closer reading of the text here shows that a corporate election for God’s purposes is what is primarily being considered, and not necessarily how He has chosen some for condemnation, but rather how He has been merciful and patient toward His own in spite of their rebellion.

Paul discusses whether God is just to allow judgment on His people. He uses examples for the Roman Believers to seriously recognize how throughout the history of His people, it is often only been a remnant that has been faithful to Him—in spite of the larger people being chosen by Him as a conduit of His blessings. Is it fair, if Paul’s own Jewish brethren have largely rejected Yeshua, for the mission given to God’s people to now largely be accomplished by non-Jews (cf. 11:25-32)? Paul provides a number of examples from the Tanach for the Roman Believers to be aware of, as another stage of His plan appears to have unfolded.

Paul begins by describing how God had promised Rebekah that her older son, Esau, would serve her younger son, Jacob (9:10-13; Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2-3). God’s choosing of the line of Jacob was “not by works” (9:12), because if it truly were then one who shortchanged his brother of his birthright, and who was a swindler and cheat, would surely not have been chosen by an impartial God. Jacob’s line was, rather, the better of the two for Him to fulfill His long-term purposes. The fact that groups of people, and not the individuals Jacob and Esau, are really what is in view here, is seen by Paul’s quotation of Malachi 1:2-3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (9:13). This speaks of the people of Israel and the people of Edom, respectively.

The motif continues as the question could be asked, “Is God unjust”? (9:14). Why does it seem that some have to fall? Paul answers this by referring to what happened immediately after the Ancient Israelites worshipped the golden calf, quoting Exodus 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (9:15). Moses intercedes for the people, after they had worshipped the golden calf, and so God says He will demonstrate a degree of mercy. Similarly, in a demonstration of His mercy (9:16), the example of Pharaoh is appealed to: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (9:17; Exodus 9:16). The issue is God demonstrating mercy and God hardening people (9:18) so that He might accomplish His objectives. He is not just doing it for some reason of “random choice.” And, it could be observed that God’s demonstration of mercy, rather than immediate judgment, is a sign of the rebellious being given a chance to repent (cf. Ephesians 2:3-4).

To further demonstrate God’s mercy shown to those who are in defiance of His will, a pre-exilic example is considered. Allusions are made to God as the potter and human beings as clay (9:19-21; cf. Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; Jeremiah 18:6). Those who rebelled against Him were appropriate “objects of wrath,” yet Paul previously notes that God “bore [them] with great patience” (9:22), and with the specific intent no less “to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” (9:23). Far be it from this being a group of individuals predestined for salvation, Paul uses these references to speak to his generation and to the Romans, asserting “even us, whom he also called” (9:24a). These are people who are loyal to Him, have recognized Yeshua as Messiah, and who have thus received His mercy. Most importantly this was “not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles” (9:24b).

To explain that there are going to be many redeemed people from the nations, Paul applies Hosea 2:23, actually speaking of the Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one” (9:25). How does he apply this prophecy to non-Jewish Believers in his Roman audience? Those in the Two-House sub-movement automatically conclude that the non-Jewish Believers were some sort of “Ephraimites,” although this is not at all something stated by Paul. The most any reader can safely conclude is that non-Jewish Believers are welcome, associated participants in the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom. While this would surely involve the Jewish people and the pockets of descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom, it would also include the nations themselves (Isaiah 49:6).[6] What is in view, of being a part of the redeemed Kingdom of Israel (9:6), is something determined by belief, not just ethnicity. This did involve more than just ethnic Jews, something that the Jewish Believers might have difficulty recognizing if not placed into some kind of prophetic expectation witnessed in the Tanach.

Why all of these complicated arguments? (And arguments surely worthy of more detailed examination.) Paul specifically wanted the non-Jewish Believers in Rome to understand that God is being very gracious to his own Jewish contemporaries who have currently rejected Yeshua. God has shown patience and mercy to people, giving them an opportunity to repent, as He presently was doing to First Century Jews who had heard the good news and yet spurned it. Their widescale rejection of Yeshua is a major cause of the widescale non-Jewish acceptance of Him! The non-Jewish Believers in Rome need to recognize this, and not at all be prideful as a consequence of most of the Jews’ problem (further discussed in ch. 11). God is not merciless to let all of Paul’s Jewish brethren reject His Messiah, referring to a Kingdom of Judah that was not completely wiped out as sinful Sodom and Gomorrah were (9:29; Isaiah 1:9).

So what has been the problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren, who have largely rejected Yeshua? Paul attempts to explain this to the Roman Believers. He says, “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it” (9:30-31). The righteousness that Paul’s own Jewish brethren should have been naturally seeking did not find it, whereas the nations, who would not have been naturally seeking such righteousness, did find it. And the reason is, “Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works” (9:32), perhaps an echo of the misuse of the Torah into “works of law” (3:20). So, by seeking God’s righteousness of their own human effort, Paul’s Jewish brethren—whom he still calls “Israel” as a sign of great honor and respect, and because that is who they legitimately are—have stumbled over their own Messiah (9:33; Isaiah 10:22-23).

Primarily addressing the non-Jewish Believers in Rome, Paul tells them, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (10:1-3). The problem with too many of Paul’s own Jewish brethren is that they sought a righteousness independent of God’s righteousness, and were unable to see the Messiah when He came. Romans 10:4 can be a tough verse for many to understand, because as most Bibles render it, “Christ is the end of the law….” Many view this as God’s Torah being the problem, and thus Jesus had to come and abolish it. Yet this does not fit the context of the passage very well, because immediately prior Paul expresses how God’s Torah is indeed “a law of righteousness” (9:31), something unable to be seen via human error.

So how is Romans 10:4 to be understood? Most of you probably have a footnote in your Bibles that reads something along the lines of “Or, goal,”[7] expressing the fact that there is some degree of disagreement among translators as to how the verse should be translated. Many are in legitimate agreement that the Greek telos should be rendered as “goal” (Common English Bible), or perhaps as it is rendered in the TNIV, “culmination.” This would mean then, rather than Yeshua coming as the termination of the Torah, He is “the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (10:4, TNIV).[8]

Romans 10:4 does not say that the Messiah terminates the Torah, but it does reaffirm that the Torah alone is not enough. Paul details how, “Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’” (10:5, NKJV; cf. Leviticus 18:5). The most that one can acquire when observing the Torah’s instructions and commandments on their own, is a good moral life, with obviously some degree of blessing—but this is not enough to bring eternal redemption and a permanent forgiveness of sins.[9]

Paul then uniquely considers Deuteronomy 30:12-13, where Moses admonished Ancient Israel that following God’s Torah was not to be that difficult. Yet to many Jews of his generation, the Torah was made to be too difficult, and it skewed the ability of many to see Messiah Yeshua. Such an approach can lead to people thinking that Yeshua was neither incarnated nor was He resurrected (10:6-7). On the contrary, though, if understood and followed properly—with Yeshua as the goal—then Moses’ words can be realized: “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart” (10:8a; Deuteronomy 30:14). Paul is here associating the Torah pointing to Yeshua—a message Moses seemingly proclaimed as his Teaching would point to the future Redeemer (10:4). The whole package is designated as “the word of faith we are proclaiming” (10:8b), as we should be specifically reminded of how all are called “to the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5). God’s Torah points to Yeshua, and salvation in Yeshua will follow with proper obedience.

This word of faith begins with acknowledging “Yeshua as Lord,”[10] God Himself made manifest in human flesh, and that He was resurrected from the dead—providing salvation to the repentant (10:9, 13; Joel 2:23). Such a declaration for salvation is something that Believers can be confident of (10:10-11; Isaiah 28:16), and most especially for the Romans, “there is no difference between Jew and [Greek]—the same Lord is Lord of all, and richly blesses all who call on him” (10:12).

There is certainly the Biblical need for God’s chosen Jewish people to hear the message of the good news. Paul asks, “How, then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without something preaching to them?” (10:14). Hearing the good news of God’s deliverance is something that was certainly true in the Tanach (10:15; Isaiah 52:7). Yet even when the message is declared, not all receive it, something also true in the Tanach (10:16; Isaiah 53:1). And, a great many Jews of Paul’s generation did hear the gospel message (10:18; Psalm 19:4).

The Apostle Paul very much considers his own people worthy of being called “Israel,” but is forced to recognize that in his day—especially with the widescale non-Jewish recognition of Yeshua as Messiah—that some passages seen in the Tanach were beginning to take shape. He asks, “Did Israel not understand?” To this, “Moses says “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation…” (10:19; Deuteronomy 32:21). Likewise, “Isaiah boldly says, ‘I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (10:20; Isaiah 65:1). God’s forbearance is seen in Isaiah’s further word, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people” (10:21; Isaiah 65:2). Apparently, Paul’s Jewish people largely rejecting the Messiah, and the message going out to those not considered a nation, was something to be expected in Israel’s Scriptures.

Yet while one could expect Paul to say that God no longer considers this chosen people of His to be important, Paul immediately steps in and stops such a thought in the Romans’ minds: “I ask them: Did not reject his people? By no means!” (11:1a). If God really did totally reject these people, then Paul’s own salvation would be somewhat of a contradiction (11:1b). Here, we are dealing with a corporate people’s widescale rejection of their own Messiah, not Jewish individuals like Paul who have recognized Him, and were beginning to see God’s plan for the nations—and the ages—take shape. For Paul, his own Jewish people largely rejecting Yeshua as Messiah—but a remnant recognizing Him (11:5-6)—is no different than the seven thousand during the time of the Prophet Elijah who did not worship Baal (11:2-4; 1 Kings 19:10, 14). The bulk of Paul’s people, having rejected Yeshua, will be “hardened”—but those who accept Yeshua will be regarded “elect” (11:7-8). This is again something consistent with God’s dealings with people in the Tanach (11:8-10; Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 29:10; Psalm 69:22-23).

So are Paul’s Jewish brethren, who had presently rejected Yeshua, beyond all help? Paul anticipates the non-Jewish Romans asking, “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?” Paul answers, “Not at all!”, asserting that what has happened was a part of God’s plan, so “because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious” (11:11). The non-Jewish Believers have a responsibility to make the Jewish people “jealous” (NASU). They have to be part of the solution to the problem. Paul instructs, “if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!” (11:12). Even though Paul is the designated Apostle to the nations (11:13), he still very much has “the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (11:14-15).

As the Apostle to the nations, what role did Paul see them playing in the salvation of his own Jewish people? He expresses how “If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches” (11:16). What follows is an analogy of Israel to an olive tree, a metaphor from the Tanach (Jeremiah 11:16), and the people who make up this olive tree being considered branches (11:17-24).

It is important to note that the branches of this olive tree are holy (11:16), and Paul says “If some of the branches have been broken off”—holy branches nonetheless—“and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others”—non-Jewish Believers—“and now share in the nourishing sap…do not boast over those branches” (11:17-18a). The Jewish people who have rejected Messiah Yeshua are still to be considered chosen of God, and cannot be shown any dishonor or disrespect, as non-Jewish Believers were grafted-in to their olive tree of Israel. And, even though considered “wild” to some degree, these non-Jewish Believers are still olives, not another species of plant, making them a part of the Kingdom community of Israel.

The Apostle Paul wanted the non-Jewish Believers in Rome to very clearly know that they had no business boasting over the significant misfortune that many of his Jewish brethren had rejected Yeshua. He instructed, “You do not support the root”—that is, the root of Israel—“but the root supports you” (11:18b). He anticipates some saying, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” He answers, “Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either” (11:19-21). If God is willing to break off the natural Jewish branches of Israel’s olive tree, He will surely be willing to break off prideful and arrogant grafted-in branches of the nations! Paul urges the non-Jewish Believers in Rome to consider God’s kindness and sternness (11:22), urging them to consider how necessary it is that natural branches be re-grafted back “into their own olive tree” (11:23-24).

So what is happening, from Paul’s vantage point? He writes the Romans, “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited” (11:25a). This is directed toward the non-Jewish Believers, and the role that they play in Israel’s grand salvation. The NIV (and similarly other versions) says “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25b). Some conclude that this is speaking of a set, predestined number of non-Jewish people for salvation, and once this number is reached, then final salvation will come to the Jewish people. Another way of looking at to plērōma tōn ethnōn is as “the fullness of the Gentiles” (NASU) or nations, speaking of a spiritual maturity for non-Jewish Believers to reach for. When they have attained this level of maturity—a significant trajectory to reach for—then the final grand salvation of Israel will take place.

Having just labeled this as a “mystery” is important to grasp (11:25a), because there may be some important layers of what he expects that some Bible readers may (purposefully) overlook. He is likely—while primarily considering the spiritual character of the nations’ salvation—once again be setting it in the context of Israel’s prophesied restoration (cf. 9:25-28). Paul references critical Tanach passages that detail the Deliverer coming to Zion and the promised New Covenant, things promised to Israel in the future, the essential reality of which non-Jewish Believers were benefitting at the time from, more from than Paul’s own Jewish people, such as the promise of the New Covenant (11:26-27; Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 31:33).

While Jews who reject Yeshua “are enemies” because of their rejection of the gospel, “as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs” (11:28). The Jewish people possess a vocational calling that is irrevocable (11:29), and non-Jewish Believers have a responsibility to recognize that they too need the same mercy that they had been shown (11:30-32). They can by no means just snub their noses at Jewish people who have rejected Yeshua, but instead do what they can to make sure that such a special calling upon them is honored—and even more so if they are to largely fulfill such a calling as a part of God’s people, as well, accomplishing the tasks of being a Kingdom of priests and intermediaries between God and the world (Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 42:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9). How a growing and demographically changing Messianic movement learns to do this will be a huge challenge for us to consider (as some have sought to redefine Torah observance and the Messianic lifestyle outside of any Jewish tradition).

Recognizing how plērōma or “fullness” (11:12) has been used describing the salvation of the Jewish people and their subsequent spiritual, ethical, and moral fullness—Paul recognized that “the fullness of the nations” principally involved the spiritual character of non-Jewish Believers from the nations. One of the most difficult things for such people to do, as the “fullness,” is “that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy” (11:31, KJV). Non-Jewish Believers who have received God’s mercy in Yeshua, largely as a result of Jewish people rejecting their Messiah, have a responsibility as the Messiah’s agents to demonstrate God’s mercy to them—not arrogance (11:17). All Paul can end this section of his letter with is a doxology praising God (11:33-36; Isaiah 40:13; Job 35:7; 41:11). I think that for many people, particularly some of today’s Messianic Jews, some elements of Romans 11:25-32 may come as a shock to them when Paul’s expectation really does come to pass in the end-times. I also think that many of today’s non-Jewish Believers have a great deal of progress to make, in being “the fullness of the nations”—vessels of God’s mercy to the Jewish people—which they do not yet realize at present.[11]

The remainder of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (chs. 12-15), unlike the significant theology which has preceded it, largely regards some practical issues that concerned the assembly or assemblies of Roman Believers. How were Jewish and non-Jewish Believers to function as one in Messiah Yeshua? What were some of the areas of dispute among these people, some made into too big of an issue than necessary? When the various fellowship gatherings around Rome met together, how were they to have unity? What do we need to read a little more closely, placing the actual issues into their First Century context?

Romans 12:1 is a frequently-quoted verse, in almost every Christian or Messianic context I have been involved with in my life: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices.” We are all surely to present ourselves as a living sacrifice to God, living properly, like an animal of high blameless quality was to be offered before Him in the Tabernacle or Temple. Yet there is a major missing component that many of us overlook, especially concurrent with Paul’s desire for the Roman Believers to be unified and not split over minor issues. Paul does not say for them to be living sacrifices; the Greek thusian is singular. Paul urges the Romans to be “a holy and living sacrifice” (NASU), indicating that their individual selves, or even individual assemblies, were to come together in corporate unity and serve their world at large sacrificially. How many of us miss this because of our Western predisposition toward individualism?[12]

If the Roman Believers could learn to come together as one in the Lord, then they would demonstrate a spiritual character that is not “of the pattern of this world,” and they would be empowered to fulfill His will for them (12:2). The corporate dynamic of the sacrifice Paul envisioned for them is readily seen as he issues instructions as to how they might all respect one another. “Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought…Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Messiah we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (12:3-5). The bodies join into a single corporate body. Each has been given different gifts that can serve to meet specific needs (12:6-7), requiring mutual respect and appreciation for fellow Believers.

How is this to take place? What Paul says should be no surprise: love. “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves…Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality…Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited” (12:9-10, 13, 16). Serving as a corporate living sacrifice also extends to how one interacts with outsiders: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (12:14, 17-18). God is the One who will avenge for any misdeeds that have been committed against His people (12:19; Leviticus 19:18). The job of Believers is to instead help one’s enemy (12:20; Proverbs 15:21), as they are to “overcome evil with good” (12:21).

To a major degree, the Apostle Paul says “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities” (13:1a), recognizing that there is a degree of establishment in the secular government by God, and that to reject this authority is to reject Him (13:1b-2). Believers need not live in fear of the government if they do what is just and upright (13:3-5). Paul is not instructing the Romans to blindly follow the Imperial government in all matters, but was probably necessitated by some issues pertaining to taxes. “[Y]ou pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to government. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (13:6-7). Wanting the Believers to be honest taxpayers may be a reflection of Jewish problems in Rome regarding taxation,[13] which could have then been compounded by additional controversies caused by the Jewish community in Rome when the gospel hit, causing Claudius to actually expel the Jews from the city (Acts 18:2).[14] Paul simply did not want the Roman Believers to be burdened with any further such problems.

Instead of being labeled as disloyal tax cheats, the Roman Believers were instead to only be focused on the necessity to love one another (13:8a). And lest anyone think that the Apostle Paul was against the Roman Believers following the Torah, he appeals directly to the Torah, “for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:8b-10; Exodus 20:13-15, 17; Deuteronomy 5:17-19, 21; Leviticus 19:18). Furthermore, Paul instructs the Romans, “And do this…” (13:11a), urging them to follow such righteous commandments. By doing this and by spurning darkness, the Roman Believers can show themselves to be men and women of the light (13:12-13). Paul admonishes, “clothe yourselves with the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (13:14).

Continuing in his final instructions to the Romans, Paul speaks to those who may be classified as weak, and those who may be classified as strong. Romans 14 is another difficult section of the epistle for today’s Messianics to deal with, often because it has been traditionally interpreted that those who keep the Sabbath and kosher dietary laws are “weak” brethren, and those who do not keep them are “strong” brethren. This is another part of Paul’s letter that needs to be read rather closely, so we can properly determine what the actual issues are.

Paul instructed the Romans, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (14:1). Would matters of God’s Torah be considered disputable or “doubtful” (NKJV) issues? Is the ongoing validity of certain commandments really the issue here? Those approaching Romans from an anti-Torah bias would approach ch. 14 from this vantage point. Torah observant Messianics, who believe that thusfar Paul has not spoken against the standard of holiness in God’s Law, would argue instead that “disputable matters” relate more to halachah and Torah application. It would be such halachah and practices that are not only “disputable,” relegated to the classification of “opinions” (RSV/NASU), but those that caused unnecessary divisions among the Roman Believers with one group improperly judging another.

Paul states what the first set of opinions regards: “One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (14:2). It is not difficult to see how one side, the weak side, is a side that has adopted vegetarianism. The other side, the strong side, eats “everything.” But what is “everything” to include? Most interpreters conclude all meats. There is no avoiding the fact that “food” is an issue in the larger cotext (14:20). But, would this “food” include anything that moves, or would it include food that God has designated as okel/brōma on the lists of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14? I would suggest that we need to understand “food” by God’s definition, and so when Paul says later in this section “All food is clean [katharos], but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble” (14:20), it is in a context not totally divorced from God’s Torah. It rather involves opinions regarding acceptable, legitimate clean meats to be eaten—and those who do not wish to eat of such meats for specific reasons important to them.

The NIV rendering of 14:3 continues the motif of “eats everything,” even though panta does not appear in this verse as it does in 14:2.[15] Instead, the second issue is prefaced, expanding Paul’s instruction, as he gives a specific reason as to why it is inappropriate to unnecessarily judge on eating: “The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him” (NASU). Here, “eating” is referred to in more general terms.[16] Paul instructs, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (14:4). This could be viewed that those who harshly condemn such brethren do not have the Lord as their Master, because these brethren are convicted that what they do is right in His sight and such harsh judgment is not becoming of His servant. The people who only eat vegetables also observe special days, which to them are very important, and they need not be unnecessarily judged.

The second disputable matter is now specifically listed by Paul: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord” (14:5-6a). Many readers immediately draw the conclusion that the Sabbath is the day Paul mentions here, even though “Sabbath” is not stated explicitly in the text. Due to the unspecific nature of “day,” Biblical ordinances like the Sabbath or appointed times need not be the issue here. Few consider the possibility that “eats” in 14:3 could be helping to introduce the sacred days specified in 14:5. When this is taken into consideration, we see that there were, in fact, various fixed days for fasting on the Jewish religious calendar, such as those remembering the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the First Temple. I would submit that when “he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God” (14:6b, NASU),[17] is discussing optional fast days, as opposed to eating meat—the second part of Paul’s argument on disputable matters.

Just as it would be inappropriate to judge fellow Believers who only eat vegetables, so would it also be inappropriate to judge fellow Believers who might observe special fast days for reasons that are very important to them. Why? “For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord” (14:8). Those who might be vegetarian and observe certain days—out of their opinion—are doing it unto the Lord. The Roman Believers would likely be sensitive to those in their ranks who would fast on a day like the Ninth of Av, so why would they not similarly be sensitive to those who have a vegetarian diet? Paul emphasizes the fact that all will stand before God (14:9-11; Isaiah 45:23), in an effort to point out the weight of one’s personal responsibility “of himself to God” (14:12).

The Apostle Paul desired there to be unity among the Roman Believers: “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way” (14:13). These are valid words when disputable matters or opinions are the issue. But then Paul says something that can get many of today’s Messianic confused. Most versions like the NIV say, “in the Lord Jesus, I am convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean” (14:14). For most readers, Paul now considers the kosher dietary laws to be a matter of opinion, something which he can disregard and relegate as “weak.” What most miss is that “unclean” is not the term used in Romans 14:14. In the Torah’s list of clean and unclean meats (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14), the Hebrew term for “unclean” is tamei, rendered in the Greek LXX as akathartos. But akathartos is not used in Romans 14:14; it is instead koinos, speaking “of that which ordinary people eat, in contrast to those of more refined tastes” (BDAG).[18]

“Common food” is not the same as unclean food, but is Biblically clean food (14:20) that is unacceptable for eating according to those of a particular high standard. In a First Century Roman context, this would have likely included Jewish Believers who had adopted vegetarianism (14:2), who for some reason or another would not eat clean meat that had been acceptably butchered in the Roman marketplace. Of these people Paul would say, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing by itself is common; except to the one deeming anything to be common, it is common” (14:14, LITV). Remember that this regards a disputable opinion (14:1), and Bible readers have to ask themselves if things like the kosher dietary laws are disputable opinions or not. And, they have to understand “common food” in the context of First Century Judaism, and how non-Jewish Believers may react to the eating habits of certain highly conservative Jewish Believers.[19]

The weak brethren in Rome were Jews who were unable to eat so-called common meat, that is, clean and acceptable meat available from the Roman marketplace. This meat may have been served at certain fellowship gatherings. Paul says that this is not to be an issue of division in the Body of Messiah (14:15-16), because “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Messiah in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification” (14:17-19), noting that while clean meat remains clean (14:20), “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (14:21). If there are strong Believers able to eat “common meat,” they need to keep any opinions to themselves (14:22) if their weaker vegetarian brethren somehow might feel condemned by such opinions (14:23). The issue is not big enough for it to cause gross divisions.

The greater concerns of the Body of Messiah are that “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up” (15:1-2). In spite of the opinions or disputable matters that may be present among the Roman Believers, the stronger Believers were to emulate the Messiah (15:3; Psalm 69:9). This would come as a part of their obedience to the Torah, as Paul asserts, “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures [i.e., the Tanach] we might have hope” (15:4). As the Roman Believers would properly do this, greater unity would come to them, and they would be able to join one another in worship before God’s Throne (15:5-6).

This was a worship that was to involve all (15:7), and non-Jewish Believers had a responsibility to understand “that Messiah has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy” (15:8-9a), something anticipated and expected in Israel’s Scriptures as the nations were to worship the One True God (15:9b-12; Psalm 19:49; Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 117:1; Isaiah 11:10). The bond that was to unite all of the Believers in Rome was to come in their worship of the God who sent His Son Yeshua to die for their sins, and in worship of Him the Roman Believers would be filled “with all joy and peace,” overflowing “with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (15:13). Once in such a venue, would the disputable matters dividing them seem pretty insignificant.

Paul knows what the ministry calling God has given him is, and he recognizes that the Romans are inherently good people who will do the right things. Paul exhorts, “I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. I have written you quite boldly on some points” (15:14-15a), as he does need to assert his position as God’s Apostle to the nations (15:15b-16). In this sacred calling, Paul has been guided by the Holy Spirit to see the nations come to faith in Israel’s Messiah, and witness great miracles via the gospel (15:17-19). He summarizes by telling them, “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Messiah was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation (15:20ff; Isaiah 52:15), noting “This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you” (15:22).

The time had now come for Paul to visit Rome, and to move into the Western Roman Empire where the good news had yet to really been declared (15:23-24). Until Paul can make his way to Rome, though, he notes that it is his intention to take up a collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (15:25-26), because “if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them in their material blessings” (15:27).[20] Once completed, Paul will be making his way to Rome and then onto Spain (15:28), and so he is sure to say “I know that when I come, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Messiah” (15:29), asking the Romans to pray for his struggles in God’s service (15:30-33).

It is easy for many readers to stop reading Romans at the end of ch. 15, but ch. 16 need not be overlooked. While it is true that Paul has not personally visited the Romans before, ch. 16 shows us that he did have a wide familiarity with many of the Believers, extending them greetings. Furthermore, the people that he extends greetings to gives us a wide array of data on the makeup of the Roman Believers—those who might have been Jewish, non-Jewish, male, female, aristocratic, merchants, slaves, and how various fellowship or assembly leaders may be greeted. Of considerable discussion in recent years has been how women played a substantial role in the leadership of the Roman assemblies. Phoebe was not only Paul’s patroness, but also the one entrusted with his letter to read it to the Romans and explain it should they have questions (16:1-2). The listing of the Apostle Junia (16:7) has also become a hot topic of academic discussion, as a male name “Junias,” as appearing in older Bible versions, is noticeably absent from ancient history unlike the female name “Junia.”

Preparing to visit the Romans, the Apostle Paul is very excited, but he urges them once again to be united, staying away from those who would seek to divide them (16:17-18). He expresses confidence, telling them “Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise over what is good, and innocent about what is evil” (16:19). Satan will be defeated, because God is One of peace, especially through the Lord Yeshua who brings His grace to light (16:20).

Today’s emerging Messianic movement is not unlike any new religious movement since the Protestant Reformation: at one point or another we have to encounter the text of Romans, and deal with its message and Paul’s teachings. Unlike many in the past, we are unique in that the Jewish and non-Jewish issues of Romans—which previous generations may have scratched their heads about—much of what Romans tells us is relevant not only for our theology, but for on the ground issues in our congregations. We face many of the same Jewish and non-Jewish questions that Romans asks. Further examination of the issues Romans addresses, consideration of its ancient First Century setting, and new proposals made in Pauline scholarship will surely fuel a great deal of the progress the Lord intends to make through us in the years and decades to come. So just like Paul, even though I may have to speak boldly on various issues or problems from time to time (15:15a), I would still express every confidence that today’s Messianic Believers will ultimately make the right choice. We will be a united group of people in worship before God (15:8-13), and via the power of His Spirit accomplish the imperatives of the gospel for all!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 9

[1] Note that the clause en nomō, appearing in 2:12, is correctly rendered as “in law.”

[2] Grk. dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou; “the faith of Jesus Christ” (YLT).

[3] For a further discussion, consult the article “What Are ‘Works of the Law’?” by J.K. McKee.

[4] Do note how the text says that via the sin of Adam, death spread eis pantas anthrōpous or “to all humans” that would follow. Adam and Eve’s sin only affected the human race, which means that possible animal death (present in the geological record) before their Fall is something a bit different.

[5] For a summary of this, consult J.M. Everts, “Conversion and Call of Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 158.

Do note that while many Romans commentators today recognize the strong possibility that the “I” in Romans 7 is not Paul speaking about himself, there are many different conclusions drawn as to what is being specifically communicated if this is not autobiographical material.

[6] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Two-House Teaching.”

[7] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, New American Standard (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994), 1498.

[8] N.T. Wright actually suggests that “climax” is the best rendering for telos (“The Letter to the Romans,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 658).

[9] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Leviticus 18:5.”

[10] This is not just a recognition of Yeshua as “Master.” As C.E.B. Cranfield validly notes, “The usage of [Kurios] more than six thousand times in the LXX to represent the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] must surely be regarded of decisive importance here” (International Critical Commentary: Romans 9-16 [London: T&T Clark, 1979], 529), indeed indicating that acknowledging Yeshua the Messiah as God Incarnate is required for salvation.

[11] Consult Chapter 5 of When Will the Messiah Return? by J.K. McKee, “The Restoration of All Things and the Emergence of the Messianic Movement.”

[12] The closest I have seen a major Romans commentator consider this is Douglas J. Moo, who indicates in a footnote, “The shift from the plural [sōmata] (‘bodies’) to the singular [thusian] (‘sacrifice’) could indicate that Paul thinks of this presentation as having a corporate dimension, involving the service of the entire Christian community together” (New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 750, fn. 24). Yet he does not examine it any further.

I would respectfully submit that this same kind of individualism has negatively impacted much of today’s Messianic movement. Consult the McHuey Blog post from 27 December, 2008, “Chanukah and Encountering Worldly Philosophies.”

[13] Such as, “the money-grubbing instincts of the Claudian period” (Cornelius Tacitus: The Histories, trans. Kenneth Wellesley [London: Penguin Books, 1992], 278).

[14] The Roman historian Suetonius records, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city” (Life of Claudius 25.2; Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves [London: Penguin Books, 1957], 202). A number of Romans commentators are agreed that this “Chrestus” is none other than a reference to the good news about “the Christ,” Yeshua the Messiah, making its way into the Roman synagogues and causing a ruckus so big that Claudius’ government expelled the Jewish population from the city.

[15] All that the Greek has is the participle esthiōn.

[16] With this in mind, 14:3-12, perhaps discussing optional fast days, is embedded within the argument discussing why vegetarianism was adopted by some of the Roman Believers in 14:1-2, 13-23.

[17] The NIV adds “meat” in 14:6b, even though it does not appear in the source text.

[18] BDAG, 552.

[19] This is examined in more detail in the Messianic Kosher Helper (forthcoming).

[20] Cf. Isaiah 2:2-4; 60:6-7, 11; Micah 4:13.

-10-

The Message of Hebrews 2011

J.K. McKee

The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably the second most difficult text of the Bible for today’s Messianic Believers to really understand. As many have desired to recapture a forgotten emphasis on the Hebraic and Jewish Roots of our faith, Hebrews forces us to consider a part of the First Century world that many would like to think does not really exist: the Jewish Diaspora.[1] I remember when I purchased my leather bound edition of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible back in 2000, and read a statement for its introduction to Hebrews: “It is certainly a superb, literal Greek masterpiece which is well-organized, logical, and comprehensive.”[2] Having encountered this, I realized that one day as Messianic engagement with the Scriptures improved, this was going to prove to be a problem because various people in our faith community hold to a steadfast, ungodly prejudice against anything that is not “Hebrew.” Several years later my suspicions were confirmed when a particular Messianic false teacher claimed that the text of Hebrews was unreliable, and its inclusion within the Bible should be severely questioned. Those with appropriate training in Biblical Studies could see right through the overblown claims made against Hebrews, which if unfortunately applied across the board could be used to question the integrity of every book of the Bible.

The most significant thing, for any reader of Hebrews to recognize, is that the author of Hebrews relies upon the unique renderings of the Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Hebrew Tanach into Greek, dating three centuries before the ministry of Yeshua. Those unfamiliar with the LXX might think that the author has misquoted from the Hebrew Tanach, when in fact he only uses the canonical Scriptures of the Diaspora Synagogue.[3] (Of course, the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the only place where the Septuagint is used in the Apostolic Writings, as many Messianic prophecies referenced in the Gospels are quoted from the LXX.) Likewise, a working knowledge of Greek is important for readers and teachers of Hebrews, to note any biased translations into English that can be rendered a bit better (8:13), or to detect words added to an English translation that do not appear in the source text (i.e., 8:7, 13; 9:1, 17, 24; 10:1).

If there is anything that is absolutely true about the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is that its author does believe Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) to be superior to all things. The author is a second generation Believer who is reckoned among those who heard the good news from those of the first generation who encountered the Lord in person (2:3).[4] He is definitely concerned about the possibility of many of his brothers and sisters leaving faith in Yeshua (2:1; 3:12; 6:6; 10:35). It is rightly concluded that the main audience of Hebrews were Jewish Believers in the Diaspora, with a wide number of interpreters thinking that it was written to those in Rome (cf. 13:24). For some reason or another, these Believers are being tempted to leave faith in the Messiah and return to a previous, Messiah-less experience in the Synagogue. Given the author’s observations of the Temple service in Jerusalem still operating (8:13), it is probable that Hebrews was written in the mid-to-late 60s C.E., against a backdrop of the Jewish uprising in Judea soon to occur.

The author of Hebrews knows that something big is soon to occur, and with it there will be no safety net in the minds of many Jewish Believers—who while having faith in Yeshua, still knew that animal sacrifices were occurring in Jerusalem. This was something comforting for them. What would happen if these sacrifices were suddenly gone? This would be uncharted territory for many of them, given the relative unestablishment of the Messianic community. Some Jewish Believers would choose to cast aside the Messiah and return to the familiarity of the Synagogue, while others would be forced to recognize the magnanimity of His final sacrifice at Golgotha, providing for a permanent atonement. There would be no more operating Levitical priesthood, but only Yeshua’s priesthood operating and interceding before the Father in Heaven (7:25). Would they be spiritually mature enough to be able to handle this?

Hebrews is frequently read as sometimes opposing the commandments of the Torah of Moses, yet the author of Hebrews is quite insistent that the Law has not been abolished, twice quoting the critical New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that Moses’ Teaching is to be written on the hearts and minds of God’s people (8:8-12; 10:16-17)—something the Messiah has inaugurated by His priesthood. Much of the argumentation style of the Epistle to the Hebrews has sometimes been taken as being anti-Judaism and anti-Temple, but in actuality he employs a common Rabbinic qal v’chomer or classical a fortiori approach, demonstrating great respect for the institutions and historical figures of Ancient Israel in order to precisely show how much greater and grander the Messiah actually is.

The author of Hebrews recognizes the ongoing plan of not only salvation history, but most especially God’s revelation to humanity: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (1:1-2). His treatise is certainly going to include some material that demonstrates how God’s plan has moved forward, and that there are some new realities that His people will have to contend with. Soon there will be no more Temple, no more sacrifices, and with it the realization that all Messiah followers will have no choice but to look to Yeshua exclusively for their sin covering.

Yeshua as the Son of God represents His Father fully (1:3a), and His intention was to enter into this world and provide permanent purification for sins, later to return to Heaven and sit at His Father’s right hand (1:3b). Because of Yeshua’s supremacy as the Son, He is to be regarded as superior to angels (1:4-5; cf. Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13), and the angels are actually directed to worship Him as Divine (1:6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX). While the angels are to be regarded as important servants of God (1:7, 14; cf. Psalm 10:4), the Son is directly regarded as being “God,” whose “throne will last for ever and ever…” (1:8-9; cf. Psalm 45:6-7). The ultimate end of the Earth and greater cosmos is contrasted to the great power and permanence of the Messiah (1:10-12; cf. Psalm 102:25-27). None of the angels are to be considered as ever having sat down at the Father’s right hand (1:13; cf. Psalm 110:1). Similar to the angel worship problem at Colossae (Colossians 2:18), there were some among Hebrews’ intended audience who may have only thought of Yeshua as being a nominal intermediary force, but not God Himself.

Our author notes that angels were present in the giving of the Torah to Moses (2:2; cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; Acts 7:54). If violation of God’s Law was met with severe penalties, then “We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away…[H]ow shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:1, 3a). The gospel message that Hebrews’ audience has encountered has been attended by the great miracles and the presence of the Holy Spirit (2:3b-4). As serious as dismissing the Torah is, dismissing the good news would bring with it even more severe consequences! Yeshua the Messiah has come into the world to bring a realization to humanity of the great things in store for the redeemed in the future (2:5-8; cf. Psalm 8:5-7). Yeshua Himself participated in the human experience (2:9), precisely so that many may be brought into glory. Yeshua’s identification with humanity in His ministry service is critical, not only so that we might emulate Him and look to Him for guidance, but that we might understand His priestly service before the Father in Heaven (2:10-18; cf. Psalm 22:22; Isaiah 8:17; 8:18).

One of the most important figures in the Bible is undeniably Moses, and the author of Hebrews has a very high view of him. Still, in demonstrating great respect for Moses and what he did for the Lord, the more significant person to whom Believers must direct their attention is obviously Yeshua the Messiah:

“Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Yeshua, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in God’s house. Yeshua has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Messiah is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast” (3:1-6).

There is no denigration at all of the figure of Moses in these statements, but Moses was a servant contrasted to Yeshua Himself who is God’s Son. While proper honor is due to Moses, our faith and confidence are to be placed in the Messiah. If not, the author of Hebrews warns that people might fall into the same predicament as the Ancient Israelites who rebelled at Meribah and Massah did (3:7-11; Psalm 95:7-11). This important scene is used to communicate how severe it would be to reject Yeshua—especially if for a previous generation God “declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (3:11). The writer urges, “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (3:12-13). The need to persevere in one’s trust in Yeshua is clear: “We have come to share in Messiah if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first” (3:14). He repeats the need to learn from this past incident, because if a generation of Ancient Israelites did not enter into the Promised Land and its rest because of unbelief, what will face those who reject God’s Messiah (3:15-19; cf. Psalm 95:7-8)?

Learning from the errors of previous generations is imperative to the author of Hebrews, and those in the First Century will be held every bit as accountable as those in Israel’s past. He observes how “since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it” (4:1). This rest, however, is not entry into the Promised Land but entry into the Kingdom of God itself. The Ancient Israelites apparently “had the gospel preached” to them the same as Hebrews’ generation, but they are to be regarded as those “who heard [but] did not combine it with faith” (4:2). The basic news that redemption and blessing would be brought by the Lord is the same for any time period; the specificity that this is to come about in Yeshua the Messiah requires the stakes to be higher. Those who know Him and believe in Him enter into the promised rest (4:3; cf. Psalm 95:11), something which has been typified by the institution of the Sabbath day (4:4-7; cf. Psalm 95:7-8). While there is surely a great eternal “rest” to be experienced by those in the Messiah, it would be difficult to argue that the author of Hebrews is “anti-Sabbath”—given the fact that by resting once a week, Believers can experience a small taste of future eschatological realities (4:8-11). The message of the Word of God, in what it communicates and how it challenges His people, is something that cannot go unheeded (4:12-13).

It is much more difficult for modern people, who live in an age when animal sacrifices seem out of place and largely taboo, to identify with our writer’s description of Yeshua as High Priest, than First Century Jews, Greeks, and Romans for whom these things were far more commonplace. Yeshua, as the Son of God in Heaven (4:14), is to be regarded as the High Priest with whom we can relate, precisely because He has participated in humanity and can convey our needs before the Father (4:15). Messiah followers should be able to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (4:16).

The author of Hebrews recognizes the value of the Levitical priesthood in stating, “Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people” (5:1-3). Yeshua’s service as High Priest before the Father is consistent with Aaron’s own appointment (5:4-5; Psalm 2:7). Yet, Yeshua serves as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6; Psalm 110:4), something validated by His own Earthly ministry and obedience to the Father through suffering (5:7-10). For some reason or another, though, the author of Hebrews expresses doubts that his audience can really understand all of the details and significance of this, still needing to be fed from proverbial “milk” rather than “meat” (5:11-14).

There are many things classified as being “elementary teachings about Messiah” that the writer lists, including: “the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment” (6:1-2). Hebrews’ audience did not have an adequate understanding of these things and many Believers today do not either. (Even our own Messianic community has divergent opinions on some of these foundational subjects.) Still, the key is to advance beyond the essentials of faith into the more complex and detailed issues (6:3).

One of the most disputed areas of the Epistle to the Hebrews is where the author asserts, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (6:4-6). Those who believe in a doctrine of eternal security, more popularly called “once saved, always saved,” have tended to have difficulty with this. Those who believe in the possibility that the spiritually regenerated can lose their salvation look here for support, although they would commonly emphasize that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would be grounds for redemption lost (Matthew 12:31). Someone would really have to declare that the salvation experienced in Yeshua is really something worthless. Eternal punishment can only await (6:7-8).

The author of Hebrews is confident that his audience will do the right thing: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation” (6:9). They have already been faithful to love, help others, and demonstrate proper works becoming of true saints (6:10). They are encouraged to continue doing the good things they have been accomplishing (6:11-12). God’s nature requires Him to be faithful, just as He was to Abraham (6:13-15; cf. Genesis 22:16-17). He Himself had to be the Guarantor of Abraham’s blessing (6:16-17). With God being incapable of lying, the hope that is offered to people is found in Yeshua, who serves as a high priest before the Father, similar to Melchizedek (6:16-20).

Melchizedek is a very interesting, albeit elusive figure, who is encountered in Genesis 14:18-20. He was a priest of the Most High God, to whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils after freeing Lot from captivity (7:1-2a). He is testified to be a “king of peace” (7:2b), with some kind of mystery surrounding him as nothing is stated regarding his origins (7:3). Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek’s significance in tithing to him, something to be regarded as the Levites having paid a tithe to him as Levi was present in Abraham’s loins (7:4-9). The importance, more than anything else, is to highlight that there has been a transition of priesthoods from Levitical to Melchizedekian, because of the arrival of the Messiah (7:11-17; cf. Psalm 110:4). The author of Hebrews speaks about there being both “a change of the priesthood” and “a change of the law” (7:12). While Moses’ Teaching as a whole—especially statutes like the Ten Commandments—is not to be cast aside as irrelevant or unimportant, changes regarding animal sacrifice, the Levitical priesthood transitioning to Yeshua’s priesthood, and most especially the Messiah’s permanent atonement have been enacted, as salvation history has progressed forward.

The author of Hebrews could observe how “The former regulation [of the priesthood] is set aside because it was weak and useless” (7:18a), with asthenes kai anōpheles perhaps better translated as “weak and unprofitable” (HCSB). The further observation “the law made nothing perfect” (7:18b) is not a negation of Psalm 19:7,[5] but rather an assertion of how “the Torah did not bring anything to the goal” (CJB) as it is powerless in and of itself to bring final redemption. The audience of Hebrews is told, “a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (7:19c), this Hope being none other than the Messiah Yeshua Himself and His Melchizedekian priesthood (7:20-22):

“Now there have been many of those [Levitical] priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Yeshua lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever” (7:23-28).

The awesome importance, of not only Yeshua’s single sacrifice for human sin providing permanent atonement, but also His priestly service in Heaven, is explained as “The point of what we are saying” (8:1a). Our writer explains the greatness of the Messiah, who is “a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man” (8:1b-2). It is asserted that Yeshua serves as High Priest of the Tabernacle in Heaven, because the Levitical priests on Earth actually serve a copy of the true Heavenly Tabernacle (8:3-5; cf. Exodus 25:40). The author of Hebrews will explain how the ministry in which the Messiah serves is superior (8:6), precisely because Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood has brought about the promised New Covenant.

A translation challenge is present in 8:7, though, because as the NIV renders it, “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” The Greek Ei gar hē prōtē ēn amemptos actually reads “for if that first were faultless” (YLT) with no associated noun. While “first” can be diathēkē/covenant, the feminine prōtē could also speak of the skēnē/tabernacle, hierōsunē/priesthood, or even leitourgia/ministry. It is far better, given the limitations of the human priests who occupied the Levitical service (7:28), for prōtē in 8:7 to be associated with the Earthly Tabernacle, priesthood, or ministry of the Levitical service—not the covenant made by God. The problems that God had are asserted to be with the people (8:8). With a second tabernacle/priesthood/ministry established, the result is that the New Covenant has been enacted. The author of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 (LXX) to substantiate that the time when a permanent forgiveness for sins would be available has now arrived:

“The time is coming declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.[6] This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (8:9-12).

No one can honestly argue from Hebrews 8:9-12 that the New Covenant is something separated from the commandments and instructions of God’s Torah. The essence of the New Covenant is not only the promise of permanent forgiveness for sins—something clearly available in the sacrificial work of Messiah Yeshua—but that “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (8:10). It is a sad fact that when many good Christian people read about the New Covenant in the Bible, they jump right over this fact.

Similar to 8:7 preceding, 8:13 and 9:1 following are another location where “covenant” (NASU) has been added to most English translations, where the subject matter from 8:13-10:18 largely concerns the limitations and transitory nature of the Levitical priesthood to the permanence of Yeshua’s priesthood. 8:13 especially has some transmission issues into English. Its opening clause en tō legein kainēn is simply “in the saying ‘new’” (YLT), with no noun provided. Kainēn should be understood as applying to the tabernacle/priesthood/ministry of the Levitical service, given what 8:13b says: to de palaioumenon kai gēraskon engus aphanismou. While often rendered with “what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear,” the verbs palaioō[7] and gēraskō[8] both mean “to age.” To regard the Levitical service as “obsolete” is too strong, whereas the NEB offers the much better rendering, “growing old and ageing.”[9] The Levitical service would have been older in its time of service than Yeshua’s priestly service in Heaven (although it has been based on Melchizedek’s priesthood), and it would disappear at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., a timestamp on when Hebrews was composed in the late 60s C.E.

It is much easier to detect in 9:1 that the subject matter is not “the first covenant” (NIV), but rather how Eiche men oun [kai] hē prōtē, “Now even the first…” pertains to the Levitical priesthood and with it its “earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up” (9:1b-2a). The author lists some of the main pieces of the Tabernacle furniture (9:2b-5a),[10] but mentions that for the sake of his audience “we cannot discuss these things in detail now” (9:5b). Within the Levitical priesthood the high priest had to enter into the Holy of Holies once a year, but could not offer a permanent cleansing of the conscience (9:6-10). In contrast to this, Yeshua entered into the Heavenly realm and presented His own blood to obtain eternal redemption for all who would believe in Him (9:11-14). By this priestly work “Messiah is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised inheritance” (9:15a).

Speaking of a covenant made (diathēkē), the author of Hebrews expresses, “it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it” (9:16). 9:17 is a most difficult verse to detect a mis-translation, appearing in the NASU as “For a covenant is valid…when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” While to some readers it may seem that a last will and testament which people make is in view, nekrois is simply a plural noun for “dead (ones).” What is more in view here is “dead victims” (YLT) in reference to animals, and William L. Lane’s paraphrased offering in his Word Biblical Commentary volume captures what 9:17 is communicating a little better: “for a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of the sacrificial victims.”[11] In instances like Genesis 15:9-21, those who made the covenant had to agree to be like the animals broken up into pieces, if the b’rit/diathēkē were ever broken.

The author of Hebrews highlights the significance of shed blood to secure an agreement between God and His people, making light of the Sinai Covenant (9:18-21). The Torah certainly did offer a degree of cleansing by its prescribed animal sacrifices (9:22-23), but not the permanent cleansing offered in the sacrifice of the Son of God. Yeshua died in humanity’s stead for violation of God’s statutes, providing for there to be a one-time offering for final atonement:

“For Messiah did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was…a copy[12] of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Messiah would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:24-26).

As important as Yeshua’s offering is for the progression of salvation history, and with it the inauguration of the New Covenant—more is still to come. The Lord will return, and the salvation of persons is to be consummated at the resurrection (9:28).

Once again as Twenty-First Century readers, we have to be reminded that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written directly to us; Hebrews was written to an ancient audience for whom animal sacrifices were quite important. 10:1 in the NASU again adds unnecessary words in attesting, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come…,” as the Greek source text simply has Skian gar echōn ho nomos tōn mellontōn agathōn, lacking “only.” Still, it is very true that the Torah has shadows of “the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship” (10:1b). The author asks, “If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshippers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:2-4). If the Torah’s animal sacrifices could offer what the sacrifice of Yeshua has provided, then a single, one-time sacrifice would be all that was needed for redemption.

Yeshua the Messiah entered into the world to accomplish His Father’s will, because of the ultimate limitations of the animal sacrifices (10:5-9a; cf. Psalm 40:6-8, vs. 6, 7 again). It is attested how “He sets aside the first to establish the second” (10:9b), with the old order of sacrifices put away in order for Yeshua’s own sacrifice to stand. Note that the issue is not the commandments of God’s Law regulating human ethics, morality, or even things like the Sabbath, Biblical holidays, or kosher. The issue in view is what the Messiah’s sacrifice has specifically done for the atonement of sin, and how “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all” (10:10). The author of Hebrews compares and contrasts the Levitical priest who has to offer up sacrifices constantly, while the Messiah has ascended into Heaven waiting only to return to the Earth and defeat His enemies (10:11-14; cf. Exodus 29:38; Psalm 110:1). The validation of the Messiah’s work is found in the essence of the New Covenant, of the Lord writing His Law onto the hearts of His people and forgetting all of their lawless acts against Him (10:15-18; cf. Jeremiah 31:33-34). To give up these things not only for Hebrews’ ancient audience—but even for us as today’s Messianic Believers—would be most reckless. The author exhorts his readers to have the steadfast assurance that they can approach the Father via the work of His Son:

“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Yeshua, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful” (10:19-23).

The attention of Messiah followers should be “how we may spur one another to love and good deeds” (10:24), with regular times of fellowship and accountability most important (10:25). The challenges of denying the Lord Yeshua, His permanent atonement, and regarding what He has accomplished as utterly worthless—are even more severe than what happens to those who disregard Moses’ Teaching:

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy think the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:26-31; cf. Deuteronomy 32:35, 36; Psalm 135:14).

For some reason or another, not stated in the text explicitly, many within Hebrews’ audience had grown a little tired or weary of their Messiah faith and were tottering. So the author naturally asks them to “Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in great contests in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and everlasting possessions” (10:32-35). These Believers were steadfast and eager in their faith, willing to endure whatever was required for the cause of the good news. They endured some degree of insults and beatings, and even illegal procurements of what they owned. Now with the Second Temple soon to be gone, some were wondering: Is belief in Yeshua really valid?

The author of Hebrews does not even entertain that his largely Jewish audience will apostatize, and return to a Synagogue experience without Yeshua.[13] He just says, “So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised” (10:35-36). Yeshua will return to the Earth, and ultimate salvation will be found in those who enter into His Kingdom (10:37-39; cf. Habakkuk 2:3-4; Isaiah 26:20).

One of the most important and encouraging parts of the Holy Bible for Believers since the First Century has undeniably been Hebrews 11, commonly referred to as the “Hall of Faith” or the “Hall of Fame of Faith.” It begins with the assertion, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (11:1-3). Faith regards those realities that we cannot fully understand as limited human beings, those aspects of our lives and experiences on Earth which require us to place our trust entirely in the hands of an Eternal Creator—the One who made the universe not out of some pre-fabricated elements as Greco-Roman mythology taught, but out of nothing.

To argue that “faith” (pistis) is just some New Testament concept, while popular among many Christians today, is something that the author of Hebrews would utterly reject. To substantiate his view that his audience, with all of the unknowns they would be facing, must turn to God like never before, he makes considerable effort to reference figures from the Tanach or Old Testament who expressed complete trust in Him. As he says, “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (11:6). These include: Cain (11:4), Enoch (11:5), Noah (11:7), Abraham and Sarah (11:8-12, 17-19), Isaac (11:20), Jacob (11:21), Joseph (11:22), Moses (11:23-28), the Ancient Israelites in the Exodus (11:29), those who witnessed the fall of Jericho (11:30), Rahab (11:31), and various other figures from both Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism (11:32-38). These were people who knew that they needed to look beyond the current terrestrial sphere and to a greater Heavenly reality for God’s promises to be truly realized (11:13-16). As the author describes, “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (11:39-40). Ultimate redemption can only come when God’s people from all ages, of both the departed and the living, are brought together at the Second Coming (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17).

Giving up on Yeshua means failing those who have preceded us in the legacy of faith. The author of Hebrews, as a good exhorter of the Messianic community, will not allow this, and so he says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Yeshua, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (12:1-2). Giving up on the Messiah means utterly insulting everything that He endured to secure final redemption for fallen humanity, and would mean that His ascension into Heaven is utterly meaningless. So the writer poignantly directs, “Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (12:3).

The author of Hebrews wonders how much his audience has really endured for the cause of Messiah. He probes them: “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons” (12:4-5a), acknowledging from the Tanach how God only disciplines His true children (12:5b-6; cf. Proverbs 3:11-12). Discipline from the Heavenly Father is never something that is pleasant, but nevertheless true Believers are to “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons” (12:7-8). Those who are true children of the Holy One of Israel undergo His chastisement (12:9-11), but such discipline via hardship is much preferred to eternal punishment. The objective of those Believers in Yeshua who may undergo temporary rebuke is to “strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. ‘Make level paths for your feet,’ so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed” (12:12-13).

It should not be surprising that the author of Hebrews, likely a colleague of the Apostle Paul, sounds very much like him in terms of the instruction he issues about general morality, including: being at peace with all (12:14), realizing the power of God’s grace (12:15), and avoiding sexual immorality (12:16-17).

Our author is quite keen on his audience understanding the realities of God beyond this dimension. As significant as it is for Messiah followers to understand, respect, appreciate, and heed what the Torah instructs about the Ancient Israelites at Mount Sinai—even more critical to heed are the realities of the Heavenly Jerusalem, angels, and departed saints worshipping before the throne of God:

“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: ‘If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.’ The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, ‘I am trembling with fear.’ But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the [congregation] of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Yeshua the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of a better word than the blood of Abel” (12:18-24; cf. Exodus 19:12-13).

Rather than focus on a Jerusalem Temple and Levitical priesthood about to fall, the attention of Hebrews’ audience needs to instead be considering the Heavenly Jerusalem where not only Yeshua the Messiah and the Heavenly host reside, but all of those who have preceded them in faith. If members of Hebrews’ audience were to give up on Yeshua, then they would not only never see the Lord, but they would also never see their departed predecessors and loved ones again. Such persons, while “made perfect” (12:23), obviously await the next stage of salvation history when Yeshua returns “with all His saints” (1 Thessalonians 3:13, NASU) at the Second Coming and resurrection of the dead. The author’s logic is quite sound: if one were to reject the Lord’s words from Sinai, how much worse is it to reject His words from Heaven? He describes,

“See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain” (12:25-27; cf. Exodus 19:18; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8).

The author’s confidence in his audience is once again noticed as he only says “since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God with reverence and awe” (12:28). While “God is a consuming fire” (12:29), the significant majority of Hebrews’ readership will never have to experience this firsthand. Even if they may have to be temporarily chastised via certain Divine means, the writer ultimately expects his readers to make the right decision in choosing Yeshua the Messiah.

Hebrews ch. 13, as the closing section of our author’s treatise, understandably includes various general instructions and ethical exhortations for his audience to behave properly as due spiritually transformed Messiah followers. The Believers are to love (13:1), be hospitable (13:2), and remember those in prison (13:3). “Marriage should be honored by all…” (13:4), people should not love money (13:5) and be content with what God has given them (13:6; cf. Psalm 118:6). Leaders in the faith are to be respected (13:7), and the ever-present and unchanging nature of Yeshua is to be recognized (13:8). There were evidently some false or strange teachings circulating among Hebrews’ audience regarding what people ate, and while there are various opinions of this among interpreters, we should not regard this as mainline kosher eating but instead more along the lines of esoteric and/or mystical views of eating in regard to animal sacrifices (13:9-10).[14]

What would be among the biggest issues for the audience of Hebrews to consider? The author tells them something that will be difficult to consider: “The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Yeshua also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood” (13:11-12). The final redemption for all of humanity was accomplished outside of the city of Jerusalem, meaning outside of the main centers of Second Temple Jewish religiosity. With this in mind, the audience is to “go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore” (13:13). This does not mean that the First Century Jewish Believers were to cast aside their heritage in Ancient Israel, somehow regarding it as worthless or meaningless. But, if they were loyal to the Messiah they would find themselves outside of their proverbial “comfort zones,” something that their Lord exemplified in being executed outside of the Holy City of Jerusalem. The ultimate reality is how “here [on Earth] we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come” (13:14).

The audience of Hebrews is to surely “Through Yeshua, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for which such sacrifices God is pleased” (13:15-16). By placing Yeshua at the absolute center of their being, they can accomplish all things that the Father intends! This includes a healthy respect and obedience for various leaders, given the reality that they have been committed to the well being of the readers of the letter (13:17).

In the closing salutation, the author of Hebrews asks for prayer for himself, his colleagues, and to remember how he says “We desire to live honorably in every way. I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon” (13:18-19). Even though the author of Hebrews is unknown specifically by name, he was known by the audience, presumably given his style of communication and the various admonitions that he issued. The final word he issues is one which commits them fully to the Lord,

“May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Yeshua, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Yeshua the Messiah, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (13:20-21).

As the Epistle to the Hebrews closes, we get the distinct impression that the author could have said more, and that he has actually kept his message rather short (13:22). He tells his audience that Timothy has recently been released from prison, a good indication that Hebrews’ main audience is the collection of Jewish Believers in Rome (13:23; cf. 2 Timothy 4:9). The author extends greetings to his audience’s main leaders (13:24a), and how “Those from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24b). While this may mean that the letter was written from Italy, “Those from Italy” might also be a reference to Priscilla and Aquila, Diaspora Jews originally from Rome (Acts 18:2), and that the letter is written to Roman Jews. The author of Hebrews being a colleague of Paul’s is confirmed by the similar closing greeting seen in the Pauline letters: “Grace be with you all” (13:25).

What does the Epistle to the Hebrews mean to today’s Messianic movement? Admittedly, it is a text of Scripture which asks us many questions that various persons in our midst are unable—and sometimes entirely incapable—to answer. The author of Hebrews places the sacrifice and priesthood of Messiah Yeshua at the very center of his message. He warns against any dismissal or abandonment of the Messiah with the destruction of the Second Temple in view, as any return to a Messiah-less Synagogue Judaism could mean some significant consequences to be experienced in eternity. The issue is not First Century Jewish nationalism, nor Jewish Believers expressing an appreciation in their Biblical or ethnic heritage; the issue is casting aside the Jewish Messiah for a more “convenient” and “established” path.

In this second decade of the 2000s, the second generation of today’s Messianic movement has already started to take shape. Many people are being “lured” by Judaism in ways similar to Hebrews’ First Century audience. Various families and persons think that they can be a permanent part of the Jewish Synagogue and maintain some degree of Messiah faith. While no one is asking or should even think for today’s Messianic Jews to be totally cut off from the worldwide Jewish community, or even for the broad Messianic world to be cut off from supporting the State of Israel—there are those who would prefer to live in an almost homogenous Jewish environment, failing to recognize any attendant problems. If some of today’s Messianic Jews prefer to focus their daily and weekly spiritual experiences in a local synagogue that does not recognize Yeshua as Messiah, then there will be definite lures present for families to be taken away from Yeshua if their association is too close—because Yeshua is likely to be an afterthought to their daily and weekly routines. There are First Century examples in the Apostolic Scriptures of how groups of Messiah followers (i.e., the Corinthians in Acts 18:1-7) had to leave the local synagogue because of Messiah faith.[15]

As we seek to adequately apply the Epistle to the Hebrews, we need not think that its author is anti-Torah, anti-Jewish, or even anti-sacrifice. He is not! But, all of these things have their various limitations in view of the all-Righteous One, Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Various Messianics who struggle with statements that appear in Hebrews are those who may ultimately not put the Messiah first in their lives and in their reading of the Bible, and who frequently wrestle with God’s plan of salvation history and what Yeshua has accomplished on behalf of sinful humanity. Those who have disregarded the value of the Epistle to the Hebrews are those who have been offended by the truth of statements such as: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4), “the Torah did not bring anything to the goal” (7:19, CJB), and especially “when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also” (7:12, NASU). These are all statements made concerning Yeshua’s sacrifice for humankind, and our widespread mortal inability to attain complete redemption on our own merit.

Reflecting upon Hebrews myself, I know that today’s emerging Messianic movement is precisely that: emerging. It is only a faith community that God Himself could put together, and it is only something that He can see come to full fruition as we approach the return of His Son to the Earth. Just as the original First Century audience of Hebrews had to learn to deal with the uncertainties of what it would be like to believe in Yeshua without an operating Temple or sacrificial system in Jerusalem, so do many of us have to learn what it means to basically be a merger of Judaism and Christianity. We need to exhibit great faith as we employ the considerable strengths and virtues of our Jewish and Christian forbearers, as we enter into the final stretch of salvation history before the parousia.

There are a wide array of challenges facing the Messianic movement in the Twenty-First Century. Too many, in spite of the diverse Biblical admonitions that one will encounter for perseverance—are going to just give up. They will not be able to consider the example of the faithful men and women who have preceded us in the faith, and eliminate anything that hinders them from accomplishing the Heavenly Father’s objectives:

“Do you see what this means—all these pioneers who blazed the way, all these veterans cheering us on? It means we'd better get on with it. Strip down, start running—and never quit! No extra spiritual fat, no parasitic sins” (12:1, The Message).

One of the main reasons, why observers claim that today’s Messianic movement is “messy,” is because too many of our constituents, most sadly, cannot handle the strain of the great uniqueness and power that is witnessed when all followers of the Messiah Yeshua come together. Religious history proves that it is only in an environment of “conflict” where “progress” can be made. Too many people, because of various insecurities and a lack of patience, cannot really process the magnanimity of what it means for those, who have at least acknowledged the God of Israel as the Supreme One (Jews and Christians), coming together and implementing all of the gifts and talents and skills of His people to His glory—as they look toward the restoration of all Israel (cf. 8:8ff).

The Epistle to the Hebrews undeniably asks us many questions that we might not be able to answer at this present time. Some have taken the “easy,” and what we would rightly call the chicken, way out by ignoring or even casting aside this text of Scripture.[16] Those of us who are willing to stand for the truth know what Hebrews admonishes us about faith—“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1)—and how all things will work for God’s glory if we simply exhibit the required patience. If Yeshua the Messiah and what He taught us and demonstrated for us are the most important things, then those who will make it to the end and endure—in spite of any criticism or naysayers—may literally be unstoppable. We are to continue running the race, steadily moving forward, never losing sight of the finish line.

The message of Hebrews is to never quit having faith in the Messiah of Israel! Indeed, let us remain constant in our faith in Him, and in the objectives that we know are to be achieved in this final hour.[17]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 10

[1] In my personal estimation, the top five most difficult books for the Messianic movement to understand are: Galatians, Hebrews, Ecclesiastes, Romans, and 1 Corinthians.

[2] Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1618.

[3] Cf. summary in Garrett, Archaeological Study Bible, 1995.

A useful tool to have, if you are completely unfamiliar with the Septuagint, could be Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

[4] The fact that the author of Hebrews is ultimately anonymous (although persons such as Luke, Apollos, or even Priscilla have been suggested) should not prove to be a problem for its reliability. Over half of the books of the Tanach are strictly anonymous, and there is no doubting that much of the prophetic literature was not transcribed by the Prophets themselves but instead their various followers.

[5] “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).

[6] Hebrews 8:9b follows the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 31:32:

“not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord” (LXE).

[7] “to be old or antiquated” (LS, 586).

[8] “to bring to old age” (Ibid., 164).

[9] Similarly appearing as “growing old and aging” in F.F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 187.

[10] Do note that while often rendered as “golden altar of incense” in 9:4 (most versions), thumiatērion is actually “a vessel for burning incense, a censer” (LS, 371). The KJV/NKJV correctly has “censer.”

[11] Lane, 47b:229.

[12] Grk. antitupa tōn alēthinōn; “figures of the true” (YLT).

The NASU adds “mere” in italics, followed by other versions which add “only” (NIV), “mere” (NRSV), or “merely” (CJB).

[13] Keep in mind that elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures, the temptation for a non-Jew to become a Jewish proselyte and be a part of a much more established Synagogue, than a still-developing group of Yeshua followers, was very much present. The dynamics in play in Hebrews could just as easily regard non-Jewish Believers not really knowing what to do with the changing circumstances in Jerusalem as well, with many just wanting to go with their fellow Jewish Believers into a Messiah-less Synagogue experience.

[14] Donald A. Hagner, New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 240 reminds us,

“[B]ecause the doctrines are described in this verse as strange, it seems unlikely that the dietary restrictions of Judaism are in view in the present context. More probably, here as in verse 4 the writer may be countering teachings derived from the influence of an early Jewish Gnosticism or the general religious syncretism of the time.”

[15] It is also very true that there are various Messianic Believers who try to live a Messianic Torah observant lifestyle while still attending a regular church. While less serious because there are many Christians who recognize that the so-called “moral law” of the Old Testament is still valid for Believers, and Jesus is legitimately recognized as Messiah, it nonetheless presents some serious challenges in order for such people to remain distinctly “Messianic.”

[16] On a personal note, as much as I would deny so-called Solomonic authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes (which is not explicitly stated in the text, anyway) and be quite skeptical of statements in this text that could be taken as anti-resurrection (i.e., Ecclesiastes 3:18-21), my regard for the canon of Scripture is simply too high for me to just disregard it entirely as deutero-canonical. I am required as an exegete to more carefully examine its verses and triangulate various opinions and positions that have been proposed in contemporary scholarship.

For a further discussion, consult the article “The Message of Ecclesiastes” by J.K. McKee, and the entry for the Book of Ecclesiastes in A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic.

[17] For a further examination, consult the commentary Hebrews for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

-11-

The Message of James 2010

J.K. McKee

Much of today’s Messianic movement places a high value on the Epistle of James and its message for Believers. In a Christian world that has lost much of its moral compass, an emphasis on practical holiness, and a realization that good works are required of God’s people—James offers an antidote to counter much contemporary complacency. To the brother of Yeshua, faith in God is not just about some kind of mental ascent or speaking written creeds; it is about performing the actions which are reflective of one’s deeply held convictions. This letter is very easy to read, as it is full of important sayings and admonitions about upstanding living in the Lord. James has, at times, been compared to some of the Wisdom literature of the Tanach or Apocrypha, a Rabbinic composition such as Mishnah tractate Pirkei Avot, and most especially the Sermon on the Mount. The Epistle of James contains important instructions for a developing and still-maturing Messianic movement, and how it is to focus its attitudes and attention on the mission of the Messiah.

James considers the audience of his letter to be of the assembly of Israel (1:1), and offers them encouragement in the midst of the trials that they have been facing (1:2), asserting “that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (1:3). Among conservative interpreters, it is sometimes thought that James’ epistle was composed around the time following the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7), and that the pressure that these Believers were likely experiencing was a result of the persecution which followed (Acts 8:1), having largely fled out of Judea. James recognizes that such trials and tribulations have an important role in the formation of one’s personal character, and that wisdom is available from God to those who ask sincerely, so that they can be stable and secure people (1:5-8).

An important feature of James’ message is how he does not waste any time in telling the rich to be careful with their wealth, as those who are truly wealthy are humble people of God (1:9-11). Most frequently, this involves those who endure trial (1:12). Yet, God does not tempt people to sin—which is different than experiencing hard times—as sin begins in the human heart and then manifests in deathly behavior (1:13-15). Much sin can be associated with the acquisition of wealth, and James is clear on how the gifts that God’s people truly need are given to them by the Creator (1:16-18).

One of the most important words that appears in James’ letter, which every reader must heed, is seen very early. The Lord’s brother expresses a direct concern in saying, “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God requires” (1:19-20). There are many possible applications of this, but one of the major ones involves how the people of God should approach conflict resolution. If there is a possible conflict or fight brewing between Believers, within a community of Believers, James instructs his audience to be very careful and not get too emotionally involved. Human anger will not accomplish that much. People who can listen to what others are saying, carefully thinking through what information they see presented, are more likely to use the God-given wisdom He has granted them and make reasonable decisions. This is contrasted to those who act rashly and do not pause to ask whether or not how they act will accomplish something, or be a waste of their time and energy.

James urged his ancient audience not to deceive themselves, and not fail to heed the Word of God, as it is to reveal any flaws in their character (1:22-25). It is insufficient for any born again Believer to simply read the Scriptures, and then do nothing. Not only does the Bible implore God’s people to guard what they say and what they do with their mouths and tongues (1:26), but we need to each take an active interest in the downtrodden in society, getting out of our comfort zones and helping those in need. James’ almost timeless remedy is, “Religion that our God and Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (1:27).

How we can demonstrate upstanding spirituality can be determined by how we treat those in the local assembly we may attend. James was most serious about how the rich were not to be favored at the expense of the poor (2:1-4). He expresses how, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised to those who love him?” (2:5). Most frequently, it is poor people who have to entreat their Creator every day for their basic needs to be met, unlike the rich who often do not think about such matters. In the case of James’ audience, he reminds them, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?...Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?” (2:6, 7). The rich to whom his readers would pay attention were likely some kind of wealthy business owners or merchants, who required the regular services of poor people in order for them to maintain their lifestyle. Rather than showing them a degree of kindness and generosity, they instead took advantage of them. Certainly in the Twenty-First Century, the tendency to exploit the poor and weak has not changed that much.

The main imperative of Holy Scripture is to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (2:8; Leviticus 19:18), labeled by James to be “the royal law.” However, James is also clear that those who show favoritism to those in the assembly are considered by God to be violating His Torah (2:9), to the point where if one “stumbles at just one point [he] is guilty of breaking all of it” (2:10). His analogy is that those who do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, are guilty of disregarding all of the Torah of God (2:11). James’ direction is to “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,” precisely “because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (2:12-13).

Too frequently in our Messianic faith community, James 2:10-11 is used as a sharp rebuke of many of our Christian brothers and sisters who often disregard things like Shabbat, the appointed times, or kosher—but are most eager to accomplish things like taking care of widows, orphans, and the homeless. Their Messianic accusers, contrary to this, will often not even venture out beyond the “safe confines” of their assemblies or fellowships. If Torah observant Messianic Believers would take James’ letter a bit more seriously and really consider the need to be full of the Father’s grace and mercy to all, then perhaps we might make a more sizeable impact when others ask us about the importance and relevance of the Law of Moses. Can we be a little more tempered in our approach to Torah validity?

I do not believe that James the Just would have had any problems with anyone diligently keeping the Sabbath or appointed times, given his own reputation as steadfastly obedient to the Torah (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-5). James expects God’s people to obey Him, asking, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” (2:14). If one is diligently following the example of the Lord, then it is to be followed by the right actions. James would not stand against anyone wanting to rest on the Sabbath or eat appropriately, but he is most concerned with the actions of service to others. If a person needs food and clothing, and all you do is bless someone by words and really do nothing about it (2:15-16), then as he directly says, “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead...Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do” (2:17, 18). This is something that Abraham of old did when he presented his son Isaac to be sacrificed at God’s request (2:19-24), or Rahab when she helped the Israelites spies in Jericho (2:25).

James spends some time discussing the heavy responsibilities which have been placed upon those who serve the Body of Messiah as teachers, issuing the stern warning, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Teachers are human the same as any other person, and they will err even if relatively spiritually mature (3:2). The specific area of maturity that James focuses on is that of speaking with the tongue (3:3-12). While a proper usage of the tongue, a small organ of the body with which “we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men” (3:9), should concern all Believers—teachers are most especially in view here. If those who instruct God’s people in the Scriptures do not focus their attention on how to demonstrate greater holiness and love, then teachers might instead set them on a course toward eternal punishment (3:5-6). James’ poignant observation is, “For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (3:7-8, NRSV).

Wise and understanding persons, according to James, are to “show it by [their] good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom” (3:13). At the same time, he delivers extreme caution against harboring bitterness and selfish ambition in the heart (3:14), specifying, “Such ‘wisdom’ does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice” (3:15-16). While there is such a thing as demonic “wisdom,” something which seems to have some semblance of insight and intelligence—even though it brings nothing but devastation in its path—“the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” (3:17). When one is full of godly wisdom, then “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness” (3:18). True wisdom from the Holy One is able to enact true shalom,[1] where peace between the Creator and man, one’s fellow human beings, and nature as a whole, can be realized. Any of us, who truly desire the wisdom of the Lord present in our hearts, should desire to help see such tranquility be enacted.

For various reasons, James had to express how many in his audience were not adhering to a basic Biblical code of conduct. Perhaps issued for some rhetorical effect, he asks them, “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God” (4:1-2). Much of what they wanted caused them, at the very least, to entertain a most ungodly approach to living. While it is doubtful that people within James’ audience were directly responsible for murdering, their lack of care for the starving poor could be associated with “killing.” James rebukes any person who asks God for the fulfillment of their own personal pleasures, as He will not grant such a request (4:3). He further rebukes Believers who choose to become friends of the fallen world and its baseness, and as a result make themselves out to be enemies of the Lord (4:4-6).

Not all hope is lost! James urges, “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up” (4:7-10). James admonishes that those who have been sinners need to change their behavior, including any attitudes where others appropriate the position of judging one’s neighbor (4:11), when the Lord alone is the “only Lawgiver and Judge” (4:12). Human beings are to be compared to a small mist, one that “appears for a little while and then vanishes” (4:14). They are to appeal to the will of God in all of life’s experiences, especially those of business (4:13-16).

James again discusses the plight of many rich people, who are to “weep and wail because of the misery that is coming” (5:1). He says, “Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth...” (5:2-3). All of the things that they looked to for satisfaction and reliability will waste away. And the reason is most severe: “The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you” (5:4-6). Such rich people could have used their means as a way to help others, giving the needy employment and steady jobs, and distributing their agricultural goods to the hungry—or at least selling them at an affordable price. Instead, those who got rich on the backs of the poor, gouging them from wages due, will get what is coming to them.

Believers who are suffering at the hands of greedy bosses are to simply be patient, because at the Lord’s coming the evil world will have to answer to the Supreme King (5:7); they are to not “grumble against each other...or you will be judged” (5:9). Instead, those suffering are to consider examples like those of Job or the Hebrew Prophets (5:10-11). Just like Yeshua admonished (Matthew 5:34-37), so does James say, “Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your ‘Yes’ be yes, and your ‘No,’ no, or you will be condemned” (5:12). The need to speak honestly is paramount for God’s holy people.

James’ epistle ends with a description of what is to happen when one of the Believers is sick. The elders of a congregation are to lay their hands on the infirm, and anoint him with oil (5:14). Prayer is to heal the illness, and sins are to be forgiven as public confession is important for the well being of the assembly (5:15-16). It may be that “oil” is not necessarily a reference to just a symbolic act, but rather “oil” used as an ancient medicine—hence prayer and a doctor’s care together can help heal a sick person. But prayer is the most important: “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (5:16b). The need to pray, especially like figures such as Elijah (5:17-18), is most critical not only in terms of seeing sick people healed, but also in turning a sinner back to a path of righteousness (5:19-20).

It is not difficult to see why a new appreciation needs to come forth in the worldwide Body of Messiah for the Epistle of James: James challenges Believers to have the right attitudes and actions becoming of those who claim Yeshua (Jesus) as Lord. James does not affirm any kind of salvation-by-works doctrine, but he does affirm that without works one’s faith is quantitatively dead (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10). In too much of today’s Christianity, there is an overemphasis on a faith in God that is not necessarily followed by the deeds which reflect the internal transformation that the gospel is to enact within Believers. Conversely in much of today’s Messianic movement, there can sometimes be an unhealthy emphasis on various outward works, that we forget to guard our tongues, our thoughts, and perform acts of helps to the destitute. A fair re-appreciation of all of what James exhorts needs to be enacted in the hearts and minds of all who desire to walk the path of the Messiah. If we can do this, we will be much closer to not only accomplishing the mission of God, but seeing the Kingdom of God made manifest on the Earth![2]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 11

[1] Grk. eirēnē; cf. G. Lloyd Carr, “shālôm,” in TWOT, 2:931.

[2] For a further examination, consult the commentary James for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

-12-

One Law for All 2010

J.K. McKee

Today’s broad Messianic movement has many admirable qualities for which it should feel most spiritually gratified.[1] The Messianic movement has been used mightily by the Lord to see many Jewish people come to saving faith in Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus), and it has also helped many evangelical Christians appreciate their Hebraic Roots and the Torah. The Messianic movement definitely stands against the common, yet errant thought in much of modern Christian theology, that the Law of Moses was exclusively for the era prior to the Messiah, and has now been nullified with His arrival.

While it is safe to say that most of the broad Messianic community believes that God’s Torah is valid instruction in a general sense, there are varied degrees of praxis and halachah to be certain. It is not difficult to find Messianic congregations which are quite close to following an Orthodox Jewish level of Torah keeping, others which shun a great deal of Jewish tradition, and then others which stand somewhere in the middle. If there is anything that all congregations or fellowships have in common, it is that there is a panoply of different interpretations and applications of commandments. The order of the Shabbat service could be very different from one assembly to another, the way kosher is kept is probably not going to be the same, and the way people dress and groom themselves will certainly not be uniform.

Because of the uniqueness of Messianic congregations, which are often mixed assemblies of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, a significant discussion and debate is ongoing about the relevance of Moses’ Teaching to the broad Body of Messiah. While it is only natural to expect Messianic Jews to keep the seventh-day Sabbath or remember the Passover, being a definite part of their ethnic heritage, are these practices—and various others—things that non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic community should also be expected to follow? There has certainly been much talk about what is intended by the Torah’s usage of terms like “one law” or “one statute” for not only the native Israelite, but also for some kind of outsider who has joined into the assembly of Israel, appearing in passages such as: Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16, 29-30. What does all of this mean?

Sadly, when these verses get mentioned among different Messianic teachers or leaders, rather than some reasonable discussion and constructive dialogue occurring, a great deal of accusations and misstatements are instead more likely to be made. The amount of negative emotions present, from all the various sides regarding the different One Law verses, has been quite disproportionate to the actual amount of careful dissection of these verses. There has been much written about the One Law subject matter, but most of it has unfortunately been in the form of refutations and counter responses to other teachers, with some territorialism quite easily detected.[2]

While it is difficult at times not to get engulfed in the politics of our broad Messianic faith community, we must strive as best as we can to remain above them.[3] We have to act like mature Believers whose loyalty is to the Scriptures and the legitimate mission of God, and not a particular sub-movement or clique. It is most surprising to me that given the significance or importance that some have given to these different One Law passages, that there has been very little engagement with the actual verses themselves. There has been an avoidance on the part of many to attempt to understand these verses for what they originally meant to Israel in the context of the Ancient Near East, their implications to the generation of the Apostles, and then how they affect us living today. Furthermore, there has not been a great deal of evaluation incorporating a reasonable range of current Biblical scholarship, including not only Jewish opinions, but also those of evangelical Christian and critical/liberal interpreters.

It is my intention in this investigation to provide an analysis for you of the different One Law verses, engaged with the Biblical text, the opinions of a spectrum of respected commentators, and how their role helps us to understand the trajectory of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers making up a “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB) in Messiah Yeshua. Our job as Bible readers and interpreters is to always go to the text, so we can see the actual data, and filter out any of the distracting noise—as noise has a tendency to just get us upset and offended at each other. In order for us to have a good handle on what “one law” really means, we need to make sure that we have done our homework, and that we are no longer satisfied with a sub-standard level of examination.

A Political Science Perspective

I consider myself to have a rather unique vantage point concerning the different One Law passages in the Torah, not because I hold a master’s degree in Biblical Studies, but because I hold a bachelor’s degree in political science. When I was a junior at the University of Oklahoma (2001-2002), I had the privilege of taking several of Prof. Donald Maletz’ classes on political theory and philosophy.[4] Understandably, much of what I studied pertained to the different ideologies and worldviews that affected the development of modern politics, in particular the political structures and institutions of Western Europe, and most importantly the United States. We did read a great deal of the classical Greek and Roman figures, as well as some Medieval Roman Catholic philosophers, Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and on to various academic voices from the Enlightenment and important people today whose philosophy influences the political realm.[5]

If you can believe it, in one of Prof. Maletz’ political science classes, we were actually required to read through sections of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and some of Deuteronomy in the Holy Bible. (The Bible was the one textbook most of the students did not have to go and buy!) We read from the Scriptures not just to understand their influence on kings, generals, or civic leaders who would come many centuries later, but we read from the Law of Moses to see how its injunctions were to regulate an ancient society to which all in the West are undeniably indebted. Looking at instructions such as a king writing out the Law of God were clearly noted (Deuteronomy 17:19), and we compared it to the figure of the American president and whether he has even read, in full, the U.S. Constitution, and has understood his oath of office.

A noticeable area that generated some, and when I look back on it, important class reflection, occurred when Prof. Maletz’ students read Pentateuchal instructions regarding “one law” to apply to the native of Israel and the sojourner within Israel. This injunction undoubtedly has helped lay the foundation of Western civilization and democracy. The principle of there being the same law for people within a society to follow would mean, particularly for American jurisprudence, that there would not be one standard for the king or aristocracy to be loosely held to (who in the Ancient Near East were often considered divine or semi-divine), and then another standard for the general populous (or peasantry) to be rigidly held to. All people within a country with a definite constitution will be held accountable to the same basic law. There might be sub-divisions within such a law which might be more relevant to groups such as males, females, priests, farmers, fishermen, business owners, merchants, the military, etc.—to which a tribunal of judges or a supreme court would be able to issue rulings and provide interpretations for people—but there are not two totally different standards for those who have citizenship. All are certainly required to know and respect the law.

Consequently, I look at the One Law issue not only from the position of a Biblical interpreter—but also as one who can see the “one law” assertions from the Pentateuch as having positively influenced American civilization and our role in the world.

“One Law” Differences to be Aware of

As we prepare to engage in a textual examination of various passages in the Torah, which use terminology such as “one law” or “one statute,” we cannot help but notice some general differences of approach between Christian and Jewish exegetes. These have to be recognized because much of the debate that we see in the Messianic community right now regarding what “one law” actually means, could possibly be seen among those who have already been trying to uphold a particular ideological vantage point, and we are simply seeing people take sides that have previously been defended.

You will see in our evaluations that most Christian commentators on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers favor “one law” or “one statute” as being some kind of summary remark about how all of God’s people are to have a single standard to be held accountable to. This not only lays the long term groundwork for the development of Western democracy, but helps to underscore the clear fact that all who know the Messiah today—Jewish or otherwise—stand as equals in the eyes of the Heavenly Father. Jewish commentators on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, contrary to this, tend to favor “one law” or “one statute” as only being a specific remark about the immediate instruction detailed. There are not, for example, to be multiple sets of rules followed when approaching the Holy One of Israel for the sacrifices offered for sin (i.e., Leviticus 7:7).

Which view is the correct view? Only by examining the relevant passages can we be able to diagnose what is actually being communicated. The challenge with doing this is that we have to evaluate the role that the various “one law” or “one statute” admonitions played within the Torah as it was originally given to Ancient Israel in the Thirteenth Century B.C.E., and the foundation it helped establish for later salvation history. Are all of God’s people today to be held to the same relevant standard, or not? What role do the varied One Law passages play in helping us understand the intended makeup of God’s people? Furthermore, what role does the New Covenant era, inaugurated by the work of Yeshua, play in us understanding the concept of “one law” or “one statute”? Does the Messiah’s arrival on the scene change any of the dynamics in how the Torah is to be approached?

Exodus 12:48-49

“But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

Exodus. ch. 12 includes the Biblical record of how the Passover was to be established as the festival commemorating God’s judgment over the Egyptians, and how the Ancient Israelites were finally freed from bondage. As Israel leaves Egypt, it is clear that not only do many hundreds of thousands of native Israelites make the trek out (Exodus 12:37), but also “A mixed multitude [eirev rav] also went up with them” (Exodus 12:38). Every Bible reader recognizes the significance that the Exodus plays for Scriptural history afterward, as it helps to form a consistent pattern of how the Lord enacts His salvation, interjecting Himself into a situation where there is no hope.[6] Within the narrative, after the slavery of Israel in Egypt has ended (Exodus 12:40-41), instructions detailing the ordinance of the Passover are given (Exodus 12:42-51). They include what to do with one who is a sojourner, somehow residing within the community of Israel, when it is time to remember the Passover.

Who would have even made up the “ethnically diverse crowd” (Exodus 12:38, HCSB) that left Egypt? Many Egyptians had doubtlessly seen God’s judgment on their country, and made the right decision in choosing to follow after HaShem. Also, as a superpower of the Ancient Near East, the Egyptians would have had other slaves, perhaps including Nubians and Ethiopians and Hyksos and other subjugated peoples, who could have joined the Israelites when they were being released. Recognizing the God of Israel as their object of worship, was His freeing of Israel something that was to only affect Israel—or was it to affect them as well? As Walter C. Kaiser describes, “With the mention of the night and the requirement that it be remembered by all future generations, it did bring to mind, especially in this context, the question of the ‘mixed multitude’ who came out of Egypt with Israel and all such persons who might join them from time to time. Were they to keep the Passover also?”[7]

What is to be made of the circumstances when Israel is finally resident in the Promised Land? Peter Enns points out to us how in Exodus 12:43-49, “these regulations are future-oriented. For example, mention of foreign slaves, temporary residents, and hired workers is not applicable to the Israelites while they are slaves themselves.”[8] It is to be noted that there is a difference made between a foreigner (ben-neikar) in Israel, and a temporary resident (toshav) in Israel:

•

“The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner [ben-neikar] is to eat of it; but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it’” (Exodus 12:43-44).

•  “A sojourner [toshav] or a hired servant [sakir] shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:45).

Ancient Israel might be a “welcoming” community in that outsiders are allowed in to work, and play a role within its economy. Yet, the commemoration of the Passover is to be a home affair for the Israelites, as “It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this” (Exodus 12:46-47). Immediately following the prescription that “The whole community of Israel must celebrate it” (NIV), a third category of persons is introduced: the ger, defined as “sojourner, alien” (CHALOT).[9] The ger (plural: gerim) is different from the foreigner or temporary resident, who might be a traveler through or a worker who will eventually leave, because an opportunity to be considered a part of the community of Israel along with the native is only available to the ger:

“And when a stranger [ger] shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:48, RSV).

In communicating v’ki-yagur itekha ger, there is an expectation that an “alien” (NIV/NRSV) will keep the Passover, and the prescription for doing so—and thus becoming like an ezrach ha’eretz or “a native of the land,” with some level of rights to property inheritance in Canaan—is to go through the rite of circumcision. John I. Durham details, “Slaves bought and paid for, that is, owned outright and without question, must be circumcised before they can keep Passover. Those passing through, even those engaged for temporary work, are not to keep Passover. An outsider may be allowed to keep Passover only if he and his entire family are circumcised, that is admitted to the covenant community. One rule applies to all: circumcision.”[10]

Following this it is asserted, “The same law [one law, RSV/NJPS/ATS/ESV] shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you” (Exodus 12:49), torah achat yih’yeh l’ezrach v’l’ger hagar b’tokkhem. All who were to eat of the Passover sacrifice are to be circumcised, given the assertion “No uncircumcised male may eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). The summarizing statement about torah achat directly concerns how there are not two separate standards by which people are reckoned as Israelites here; physical circumcision reckons one as a “native of the land,” ready to fully participate in Passover. In order for the native-born male to be a real “Israelite” ready to eat the Passover, he had to be circumcised; and in order for the ger to be considered a real “Israelite” and keep the Passover, he had to be circumcised. It was not as though the ger had to be circumcised, and also sacrifice ten bulls and twenty sheep, or be circumcised and pay two talents of silver pieces. The same standard applies.

But does torah achat at all undergird the issue of the same overall instruction of Moses’ Teaching being relevant to all people within the greater community of Israel? In the estimation of Richard Elliot Friedman, at least, “The context here concerns the Passover statute, but this principle of treating a resident alien the same as any citizen will be repeated many (about fifteen) times in the Torah.”[11] The reference to torah achat or “one law” primarily speaks to a specific series of instructions, but can be applied to support the wider and more foundational principle that the same basic instruction—no matter what the issue—applies to all within the community of Israel.

Nahum M. Sarna also thinks that if a ger underwent circumcision, “Having done so, no discrimination between him and the citizen was allowed,” and he is also right to confirm, “Just like an uncircumcised non-Israelite, so an uncircumcised Israelite was also excluded.”[12] So, in a manner of speaking, it is theoretically possible in the Pentateuch for non-ethnic Israelites to be more “Israelite” in following the prescription to keep Passover, if any ethnic Israelites are found to dismiss it.

Anyone not native born of Israel, but who would be sojourning in the Promised Land, would be in a rather odd predicament when it came time in the course of the year for the people to observe the Passover. Native male Israelites who were circumcised from the time of birth would be able to eat the Passover lamb without any problems. A family of sojourners, who had fully recognized and confessed faith in the God of Israel and His goodness, and were by no means idolaters, would stand out—if the males had not undergone circumcision—in not being able to fully participate in eating of the Passover.

Exodus 12:19 previously does state, “Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien [ger] or a native of the land [ezrach ha’eretz],” which indicates that a family of sojourners might at least have been able to partake of the bread and bitter herbs at Passover if not yet circumcised. Yet, if so, they would have been incapable of entirely commemorating the focal point of salvation that delivered the chosen nation from bondage: the Passover lamb. If fully committed to Israel’s God, circumcision of the male sojourners would need to be in order (and not delayed too much), so that they could partake of the Passover fully. Given the national significance that the Passover held for Israel, it would not seem very likely for sojourners within the community to always disregard full participation in it, with many committed to the One True God being aware of the need to be circumcised. That sojourners should be circumcised to fully participate in Passover is an impetus detected from Exodus 12:48-49. Many such sojourners undoubtedly, in becoming circumcised, went through a useful status change that permanently bound their progeny to the community of Israel.

What is circumcision primarily for in relation to Exodus 12:48-49? Is it for being a member of the community of Israel? Or is it for fully partaking of the Passover and eating of the Passover sacrifice?[13] It is easy to see how the central theme of Exodus 12:48-49 is not circumcision of the ger/sojourner, but rather v’asah Pesach l’ADONAI, “and would keep the passover to the LORD” (Exodus 12:4, RSV)—the full observance of the Passover. While it is tempting to think that Exodus 12:48-49 presents circumcision as the entryway for the ger/sojourner into Ancient Israel; it is actually the commemoration of the Passover and remembrance of the Exodus which defines Israel and God’s salvation activity on Israel’s behalf, and is the real issue here. Full participation in the Passover requires circumcision, and then results in “native of the land” status being granted to the sojourner. Passover is actually to be the central focus of membership in Israel, of which being circumcised has a part.

In undergoing circumcision to fully observe the Passover, an outsider to Ancient Israel would undeniably be considered an Israelite, who could participate in all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being a member of the chosen nation. Walter Bruggemann observes, “what matters is a readiness and willingness to be counted an Israelite, and that is signified by a readiness to be circumcised. Thus the regulation is inclusive (though obviously gender specific), but it is not careless or casual.”[14] The stipulation of circumcision is also not that cumbersome. But note how this is not the later, sometimes rigorous, post-Maccabean process of a Greek or Roman proselytizing to Second Temple Judaism (b.Keritot 9a), encountered in the Apostolic Scriptures (discussed further). Furthermore, circumcision in the Ancient Near East[15] was not as taboo as it was for the later classical civilizations of Greece and Rome.

What is the significance of circumcision here, anyway? Why is it that the males who would partake of the Passover have to be circumcised? Why not simply prescribe that anyone wanting to eat the Passover wash themselves thoroughly ten times, or wear clothing a certain color, or put on a special hat or an accessory like some sash made from the Passover lamb’s wool?

The narrative has already given us an important clue as to why the Ancient Israelite males were to make sure they were circumcised before eating of the Passover. Leaving Egypt we see, “at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:41), an affirmation that Abraham’s descendants would only be in Egypt for a limited time (Genesis 15:13). God was faithful to make sure that Israel’s bondage to Egypt eventually ended, and so being circumcised to keep the Passover, commemorating their freedom from oppression, would allow them to remember how He has kept His word to Abraham (cf. Genesis 17:10). With Israel having departed from Egypt, Bible readers witness the beginning of a singular community of God. Terence E. Fretheim observes,

“Circumcision is the distinctive factor because that is a sign of membership in the community of faith which confesses the God of the passover. This is not a new level of exclusivism but a recognition that passover is a festival for persons who have faith in this God. These others are invited to join that community by being circumcised, a sign that they have made the confession of this ‘congregation’ as their own. The experience of freedom is hereby integrated with the confession of faith in the God who liberates.”[16]

Enns also astutely notes,

“The appeal to circumcision also emphasizes that, although the meal is to be celebrated inside the home, it is more properly considered a community affair. This is not private worship. It is a community of believers bound by circumcision to their covenant God.”[17]

The narrative in Exodus 12 occurs before Ancient Israel has crossed the Red Sea and has arrived at Mount Sinai, receiving the Ten Commandments. Obviously, we as Bible readers need to consciously understand how the concept of “one law” is to be later amended with additional instructions and examples to weigh into our theological deliberations.

Ancient Israel’s observance of the Passover, with the availability for the ger or sojourner to be circumcised, eat the Passover lamb, and thus be considered not only a full member of the community but a native of the land—is only the first element in laying forth the principle that all who make up God’s people will be held to the same basic standard. We should all agree with J.A. Motyer, who concludes, “That this is a community with two components, not two degrees or levels of membership, is rather more explicit in the Hebrew,”[18] making light of Exodus 12:47, which says kol-adah Yisrael are to remember the Passover, and we do not see any sort of discouragement for the sojourner to keep the Passover. Motyer squarely associates the sojourner as being a part of the assembly of Israel, stating, “The circumcised alien is able to come into full membership under the same principle as the native-born.”[19] Israel is to be a people principally defined by the Passover and its theme of deliverance, though, not circumcision. In the analysis of Brian D. Russell,

“God’s people are an inclusive community, not merely defined by ethnicity. God’s people were created and sustained by God’s gracious actions [like the Passover/Exodus]. The inclusion of a mixed group serves as a reminder that God’s ultimate purpose for God’s people is for them to serve as God’s human’s agents to extend God’s salvation to all peoples and nations (cf. Gen 12:3; Exo 19:5-6; Matt 28:18-20).”[20]

Moving ahead in salvation history, and noting Exodus 12:49, Motyer makes reference[21] to Ephesians 3:6 speaking of the nations’ being “fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel.” In Messiah Yeshua, all Believers should remember the Passover for what it teaches us not only about the deliverance of Ancient Israel from Egypt, but also our Lord’s Last Supper, His sacrifice for our sins, and His resurrection from the dead (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7).[22] Such a Passover in Messiah is much more deep and significant for us to commemorate as Believers today, than what the Israelites of old were able to do, as important as that was.

The degree by which Yeshua’s offering up as our Passover sacrifice has changed some of the orientation of Exodus 12:48-49, inaugurating the era of New Covenant (Luke 22:20; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27), and perhaps altering the emphasis of how an outsider enters into the community of Israel (cf. Ephesians 2:11)—is a hotly debated issue among today’s Messianic Believers, including proponents of a One Law ideology and critics of it. Some One Law adherents would suggest that physical circumcision of males is required to not only commemorate the Passover sedar (which frequently lacks any lamb today), but be “really” reckoned as a part of God’s people. Others would say that with the Second Temple destroyed, and with the sedar reoriented for us to memorialize not only the Exodus but also the Last Supper and Yeshua’s sacrifice,[23] that a Messiah-centric application of torah achat needs to be considered, with physical circumcision now less important as it once was for Ancient Israel. And, given Yeshua’s position on the Torah associated with the good works of His followers (Matthew 5:16-19), would He hold those who have placed their trust in Him to the same basic standard—albeit with much grace, understanding, and forbearance in motion for those trying to understand Moses’ Teaching—or would multiple standards of behavior and conduct be allowed for different sectors of the faith community?

Knowing that the concept of “one law” is first mentioned in association with the Passover, and how the ultimate Passover is Yeshua the Messiah, it is quite safe for us to conclude that the concept of “one law” must be understood in light of our Lord’s actions and admonitions in relation to the Torah. The original ANE context of “one law” is but one stepping stone forward to His work for us, and the proper actions which Messiah followers are to demonstrate.

Leviticus 7:7

“The guilt offering is like the sin offering, there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.”

When surveying the Book of Leviticus, it is quite easy to detect various targeted, specific uses of the Hebrew term torah, which do not speak of Moses’ Teaching or the Pentateuch as a whole. Samuel E. Balentine notes how “The book of Leviticus contains ten tôrôt...Five of these are concerned with sacrifice...Five are concerned with impurity,”[24] which he proceeds to categorize:

SACRIFICE

the burnt offering (Leviticus 6:9)

the cereal offering (Leviticus 6:14)

the purification offering (Leviticus 6:24)

the reparation offering (Leviticus 7:1)

the well-being offering (Leviticus 7:11)

IMPURITY

animals (Leviticus 11:46)

childbirth (Leviticus 12:7)

skin disease (Leviticus 13:59; 14:54-57)

purification of skin disease (Leviticus 14:2, 32)

genital discharge (Leviticus 15:32)[25]

In Leviticus 7:7 we see the assertion torah achat l’hem or “there is one law for them” (RSV/NASU), here serving as a summary remark of the preceding instructions of the reparation/guilt offering and the sin offering. There is no doubt when reviewing Leviticus 7:1-7 that torah achat relates to commandments given to the Levitical priests who were to perform an important service on behalf of the wider community of Ancient Israel:

“Now this is the law of the guilt offering; it is most holy. In the place where they slay the burnt offering they are to slay the guilt offering, and he shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar. Then he shall offer from it all its fat: the fat tail and the fat that covers the entrails, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe on the liver he shall remove with the kidneys. The priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar as an offering by fire to the LORD; it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy. The guilt offering is like the sin offering, there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it” (Leviticus 7:1-7).

The Levitical priests are to offer up the asham or “guilt offering” as an olah or whole burnt offering to the Lord. Leviticus 7:7 states that the asham is the same as the chattat or “sin offering.” The employment of torah achat or “one law,” the “same rule” (NJPS), “one standard” (WBC),[26] or “the same ritual” (NRSV), applies for both the asham and chattat,[27] the latter having been previously mentioned (Leviticus 6:25-30; cf. 4:1-35). The same basic procedure is in force for the guilt offering and sin offering: “The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7a, NIV). Martin Noth says, “v. 7a expressly states that the same directions are valid for sin offering and guilt offering,”[28] although Kaiser does clarify, “The rites for the guilt offering are the same as those for the sin offering, except for the way in which the blood is disposed.”[29] The blood of the guilt offering or asham was to be sprinkled around the altar (Leviticus 7:2), whereas the blood of the sin offering or chattat was to be put on the horns of the altar (Leviticus 4:34).

In Leviticus 7:7 the terminology of “one law” is used to represent a considerable overlap of instructions between the guilt offering and the sin offering. Kaiser observes that “No mention is made of the laying on of hands as appears in the sin offering (4:4), but since these two offerings are treated as having the same law (7:7), presuming its presence here as well is reasonable.”[30] We are also on safe ground to conclude that torah achat or “one law” is used to emphasize the sacredness of both the sin offering and guilt offering.

That there is “one law” claimed for the sin offering and guilt offering is also important in view of Leviticus 7:7b, which need not be overlooked: “the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.” Baruch A. Levine makes the point, “This statement is significant because it indicates that the expiatory sacrifices eaten by the priests are actually their property.”[31] The meat of either the sin offering or guilt offering is actually the property of the Levitical priests, as it composed a part of their remuneration. The thought of R.K. Harrison is, “These constitute their livelihood, and enable them to devote their time and energies to the Lord’s service rather than to lesser pursuits.”[32]

Torah achat or “one law” is used in Leviticus 7:7 for instruction that directly applies for the order of the Levitical priests, who made up a significant subgroup within the population of Ancient Israel, and specifically how the instructions detailing the sin offering and guilt offering were basically identical. Given the actual usage of torah achat or “one law,” we see that here textually it actually regards two sets of similar instructions regarding animal sacrifice; “one law” here does not concern people as much as it concerns the listing of some Torah commandments.

Reading Leviticus 7:7 in context should alert some Messianic people who identify themselves as holding to a One Law ideology, that they might need to be cautious in how they quote sound bytes where the claim “there is one law...” is seen in the Torah. Leviticus 7:7 concerns how the reparation/guilt offering and sin offering were to be categorized.

Leviticus 24:22

“There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.”

Leviticus 24:22 actually asserts mishpat echad yih’yeh, employing the term mishpat, which has a range of meanings throughout the Hebrew Scriptures: “decision, judgement,” “legal claim,” “measure,” or “law” (HALOT).[33] Mishpat echad is rendered in modern versions as “one standard” (NASU/NJPS), “the same rule” (ESV), “the same standard of judgment” (CJB), “the same law” (NIV), and “one law” (RSV/NRSV). Even though mishpat is used here and not the term torah, we should not consider this to be a problem. That there is to only be mishpat echad within Ancient Israel, appears within a series of regulations pertaining to the execution of criminals, and in seeing how restitution is to be made to a plaintiff for a variety of crimes (often referred to by the Latin lex talionis or law of retaliation). The idea of one standard of rules to be honored by all within the community of God, which is in place for both the ger/sojourner and ezrach/native, is substantiated in Leviticus 24:10-23 by some very important examples.

Admittedly, much more attention in this passage may be given by some Christian commentators and interpreters to the statement “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and the instruction regarding damages (Leviticus 24:17-21), given its reference made in Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount teaching (Matthew 5:38ff), than what “one standard” or “one rule” means in terms of regulating Ancient Israel.[34] Yet, the law of damages is a definite part of how mishpat echad is to be understood for the native and sojourner within Israel.

The ruling that mishphat echad is to apply is primarily made because of a most significant incident within the broad populous of Israel. The wilderness camp of Israel is undeniably mixed (Exodus 12:38; Deuteronomy 23:7-8), a crime is committed, and there is doubt about how proper punishment is to be issued. One, whose father was an Egyptian and mother was an Israelite, cursed the name of God while in a fight. What was to be done? He was placed into custody until a decision could be made:

“Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the sons of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel struggled with each other in the camp. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) They put him in custody so that the command of the LORD might be made clear to them” (Leviticus 24:10-12).

As is typical in jurisprudence, high crimes—and not necessarily lesser issues—set the precedent for rulings, practices, and even social norms that will affect an entire scope of legal and ethical matters, and the way a culture acts toward its law. Serious and severe situations here like blasphemy against the Divine Name, or even significant compensation for another’s property lost or injuries made, create the need for overarching precedents to be established.

Notable to be considered here is not that this half-Egyptian, half-Israelite person could have been considered exempt from punishment for blasphemy. He was guilty of blasphemy. But, as John E. Hartley points out, “The question before the community was not the guilt of the half-breed, but what was the appropriate penalty by reason of his ambivalent social standing.”[35] Could this man, because he was not a fully-born Israelite, possibly be given a lesser or a more significant sentence for his crime? The Divine injunction issued by God to Moses was that there was to be no difference in the penalty for blaspheming the Divine Name, as both the native Israelite as well as the ger/sojourner were to be stoned to death:

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him. You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone curses his God, then he will bear his sin. Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native [k’ger k’ezrach], when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death’” (Numbers 24:13-16).

The need for a uniform penalty in this instance is rather obvious, given the magnitude of the offense. Derek Tidball states how, “Full Israelite, half-Israelite, or alien, the brazen insolence shown to the sacred name of God and all that it stood for could in no way be tolerated.”[36] We are not exactly told in which way the half-Egyptian, half-Israelite man actually blasphemed the Lord, even though the verb nqv, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice), can mean “to slander” (HALOT)[37] or “curse, execrate” (CHALOT).[38] Details of what might have been said are left out, but we could speculate on how someone with a partial Egyptian heritage might have claimed something about HaShem being a God of slaves or rabble, or how He was somehow weak and impotent for leading His people into the desert to rot (cf. Exodus 14:11-12), equating to a kind of curse.[39] Still, what is more likely in a fit of rage was the usage of the Divine Name as a slur, via the employment of some ancient equivalent of “g**d****t.” Regardless of how the crime was actually committed, there can be no disputing that the same death penalty was applicable for anyone within the camp of Israel. Noth explains,

“The special feature of the case in Lev. 24:10ff consists in this: a ‘foreigner’ has cursed the name of God, and the decision goes forth that there is the same law for foreigners and natives, and that ‘cursing the name of God’ is for a foreigner, too, an ‘offence worthy of death’.”[40]

Not to be overlooked in this scene is whether this blasphemer even claimed to follow Israel’s God, or whether he was just in the community of Israel because of his mother’s Israelite heritage. Hartley indicates, “Blasphemy against foreign gods was not considered a serious matter in ancient Israel,”[41] an example of which is some of the speech witnessed in Judges 6:25-32 and the mockery made against the Canaanite god Baal. It might have been that if the half-Egyptian, half-Israelite had cursed and said something like “May Ra/Horus/Osirus (or some other Egyptian god) strike you down you!” he could have gotten off with some kind of a lesser sentence like having to go perform some manual labor, garbage collection, or dig latrines and gather up animal waste—as these false gods were humiliated by the Lord in the judgment on Egypt, and the man would only look stupid. But because the God of the Exodus was somehow invoked improperly, capital punishment was necessary. Among interpreters, Hartley’s conclusion is, “this group of laws [24:10-23] was to underscore the standard that those of mixed blood and foreigners living in Israel are subject to the laws of blasphemy, whether or not they worship Yahweh as their God.”[42] Certainly for the community of Ancient Israel wandering in the desert, nobody needed to hear any curse issued against Him or in His name go unpunished—regardless of who said it. As Levine astutely explains,

“Non-Israelites are responsible for acts considered vital to maintaining the religious character of the community. Therefore, offenses that threaten the overall religious character are punishable, even when committed by non-Israelite residents.”[43]

If the half-Egyptian, half-Israelite man here were really not as true a follower of HaShem as most others in the community—and he was to be executed for blasphemy—then how significant would it have been for true followers of HaShem, whether native born or sojourner, to have been shown the same standard if they were to blaspheme?[44] Kol-ha’eidah or “all the congregation” (Leviticus 24:14) was required to see that a blasphemer was stoned to death, and no statement is made here about only the native born being a part of the “real assembly”; the sojourners within the community of Israel are treated as though they already acknowledge HaShem as the One True God and they have to enact the capital punishment as well. Everyone, whether native or sojourner, had something to lose if blasphemy against the Lord were allowed to persist in the camp of Ancient Israel.

The severity of blasphemy is something witnessed not only in the Pentateuch, being condemned by the Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7) and how cursing God is clearly prohibited (Exodus 22:28), but how capital punishment was employed later in the Tanach (1 Kings 21:10, 13). In the Apostolic Scriptures, we see how false charges of blasphemy were issued against Yeshua the Messiah and the martyr Stephen, for which they were unjustly murdered (Matthew 26:65-66; Acts 6:11ff).

Immediately after the instructions detailing the execution of the half-Egyptian, half-Israelite blasphemer are given (Leviticus 24:10-16), laws regarding damages (lex talionis) are seen. With the exception of capital punishment for murder issued first, these were to largely regulate lesser crimes or negative actions that may manifest themselves in Ancient Israel:

“If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17-21).

What need not allude us between this “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” instruction in the Torah, is how capital punishment is not prescribed for every offense. If an animal kills a human being, its owner is not to be executed, although in making “restitution” (NIV/NJPS/NRSV)[45] it may be that not only is the animal to be put to death, but some kind of material reparation is offered to the deceased’s family (only the exact circumstances could tell). Gordon J. Wenham is keen to explain to us how this runs contrary to much of what would be seen in the contemporary bodies of law in the Ancient Near East. He says,

“Throughout the ancient Orient the death penalty was imposed for a wider variety of crimes than currently in western society. This applies to the OT as much as the Mesopotamian systems, but whereas the laws of Hammurabi regard property offenses and similar crimes as capital, the OT does not. In its [OT’s] eyes, sins against the family and religion are the most serious, and hence often attract the death penalty, whereas economic matters are treated more lightly.”[46]

What makes the Torah’s instruction on the laws of damages so significant, although there would have been variance within the other law codes of the ANE, is that there is no blanket capital punishment prescribed for all offenses. Within the lex talionis of Leviticus 24:17-21, there are instances beyond that of executing a murderer, which would have had to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Vs. 18-21, in particular, may be considered some ad hoc examples of where just restitution is to be provided to an offender.

With Moses having told the Ancient Israelites that the half-Egyptian, half-Israelite man is to be stoned for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and having delivered instruction on restitution for damages, he then speaks forth the Lord’s word, “You are to have the same law [mishpat echad] for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 24:22, NIV). Following this, the blasphemer is stoned to death (Leviticus 24:23).

There is no indication in Leviticus 24:22 that the ger or sojourner is to be held to a different standard than the native born of Israel. Those outsiders who have entered into the community of Israel face the same responsibilities and penalties as anyone else, especially in terms of capital offenses. In Friedman’s estimation of this scene, “the account therefore has the value of not only dramatizing the law concerning blasphemy, but also of dramatizing the principle of equality before the law.”[47] The equality that native and sojourner within Ancient Israel have before the Torah, would have been most significant, because as Levine argues, the term mishpat regards a “norm of justice,” describing, “The stipulation must be made specific because of the practice, in certain legal systems, of judging resident aliens by a different law.”[48] There is to be no uncertainty present in terms of what measure of law the ger is to be held accountable to; he or she is not going to be held to a completely different scale—be that scale more harsh or more lenient. The further thoughts of J.H. Hertz should also be well taken:

“In no other code was there one and the same law for native-born and alien alike. Even in Roman law, every alien was originally classified as an enemy, and therefore devoid of any rights. Only gradually was the protection of the law extended to him. It is not so very long ago {Hertz’ 1960 edition of Pentateuch & Haftorahs} that aliens in European states were incapable of owning landed property. In many countries, the denial by the dominant race of civic and politic rights to ‘aliens’, though these may have lived for generations in a land of their sojourn, is a matter of contemporary history.”[49]

Realizing that the Torah is indeed going to hold all within the community of God to the same basic standard—whether native of Israel or sojourner—would have gone a long way in an ancient time, when generally speaking, there would be at least two sets of standards in place for the natives of a country, and then any outsiders who had entered in, even just to temporarily work. And, not only would the native born and outsider be held to different standards, but most likely “natives” within ANE societies would have different scales of law for the aristocracy, the rich, and the poor—and the different monarchies, perceived as divine or semi-divine, might not have even been accountable to the law in some cases.[50] Balentine lauds the significance of the Leviticus 24 instruction for both its theological and civic contributions:

“Legal statutes that demanded penalties commensurate with the damage done effectively erased the inequalities of the rich and the poor, the person of rank and the commoner, thus enabling a more egalitarian judicial system. Those with wealth could not pay their way out of punishment by compensating their victims; those without could not claim special exemption simply because they could not make a monetary restitution for their offense. The author of Leviticus 24 may have seized on this egalitarian legal principle to buttress the theological conviction that the same law must apply to the native Israelite and the resident alien.”[51]

Recognizing the significance of mishpat echad or “one standard” being held, is key for any reading of the Pentateuch. Harrison is most correct in informing us, “These regulations applied uniformly to all members of the nation, whatever their racial origin, and like other enactments carried the assurance of God’s imprimatur.”[52] In the case of Leviticus 24:22, the only disadvantage to the ger would probably have been that some sojourners who had entered into Ancient Israel, at a later point in life, were less likely to know what the Law was, than those native born who had been exposed to it their entire lives (although in some circumstances there were probably native-born Israelites who knew the Torah’s legal code less than some sojourners). This is why righteous judges would have to be appointed in the towns of Israel (Deuteronomy 16:18; 25:1), so that when crimes were committed a proper investigation could be conducted. If this was done properly, then those truly ignorant of the Law or the Law’s lesser known injunctions, could still be dealt with fairly. Still, the job of all people within a society—especially that of Ancient Israel who was given the Torah, preparing to enter into the Promised Land—is not to be ignorant of the statutes that govern it.

We need to be thankful today that should any of us be ignorant of the Torah’s standard, that we stand ultimately accountable before an Eternal Judge, the only omniscient One who can truly know the intentions of the human heart, and whether a person’s intentions are to obey or disobey Him (cf. Romans 5:20).

Numbers 9:14

“If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land.”

Numbers 9:14 appears in a wider context where a series of instructions regarding the Passover is given (Numbers 9:1-14), as Ancient Israel enters into its second year in the wilderness, and the people observe the Passover (Numbers 9:1-2). It is specifically stated, “you shall observe it at its appointed time; you shall observe it according to all its statutes and according to all its ordinances...[I]n the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD had commanded Moses, so the sons of Israel did” (Numbers 9:3, 5).

The main focus, we see, of the Numbers 9:1-14 instruction, is to clarify what to do if one is unclean or tamei as a result of being in contact with a dead body (Numbers 9:6), as all within the community of Israel are expected to remember the Passover. It is inquired of Moses, “Though we are unclean because of the dead person, why are we restrained from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the sons of Israel?” (Numbers 9:7). Moses goes before the Lord, because there is no purposeful omission of keeping the Passover. Moses receives a response, and the statues which are detailed indicate what needs to be done if there is someone unclean because of contact with a corpse, or if there is one who fails to keep the Passover out of willful omission:

“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If any one of you or of your generations becomes unclean because of a dead person, or is on a distant journey, he may, however, observe the Passover to the LORD. In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall observe it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall observe it. But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man will bear his sin’” (Numbers 9:10-13).

Far be it from those contaminated by a corpse being prohibited from keeping the Passover entirely, they are to remember the Passover one month after the standard Passover for the rest of the community. It is also explained how one who is clean or tahor, and is not away on a long journey, will be “cut off” and suffer (at least) some kind of social and/or spiritual excision. Such a willful omission of Passover, without any special circumstances to consider, is sin.

Is it at all important that nothing is specified in regard to males being circumcised to eat of the Passover lamb, as was stated previously in Exodus 12:48? Those of the critical tradition might claim that the Exodus instruction originates from either the J and/or E sources of the Pentateuch, and the Leviticus instruction from the P source, whereas conservatives who hold to a Mosaic origin would not claim that there is any difference of sources here. What is asserted in Numbers 9:3 is k’kol-chuqotayv u’k’kol-mishpatayv ta’asu oto, “according to all its statutes and all its regulations you shall keep it” (NRSV). This would be a reference back to the previous Exodus 12 instructions, delivered as Ancient Israel left Egypt, which should certainly be in the mind of the Torah reader.

Just so that there is no confusion about the allowance for a second Passover to be observed a month later, for those who are contaminated by a corpse, the Lord directs that “If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land” (Numbers 9:14). Let us not overlook how while the opening two conjunctions v’ki- can be rendered as “And if...” (RSV/NASB/ESV), they can also be rendered as “And when...” (NJPS), as though it is inevitable that the ger/sojourner will keep the Passover, even if it is not upon his immediate entry into the community of Israel: v’ki-yagur itekhem ger.

As has been previously witnessed, there are not to be multiple sets of instructions which regulate how either the ezrach/native or ger/sojourner within Israel observe the Law, here regarding how the Passover is to be memorialized. Numbers 9:14 does not employ the term torah, but instead uses chuqah achat: “one statute” (RSV/NASU/ESV), “the same statute” (HCSB), “the same regulations” (NIV), “the same law” (CJB), or “one law” (NJPS).[53] In this instance chuqah achat draws the reader’s attention to how the native and sojourner alike are to keep the Passover, k’chuqat ha’Pesach u’k’mishpato, “in accordance with its rules and regulations” (NIV) or “in accordance with the rules and rites of the passover sacrifice” (NJPS).

Thomas B. Dozeman’s remarks might need to be considered here, as he draws our attention to the fact that within the Torah’s narrative where this instruction appears, “There could be no resident aliens in the wilderness, since all Israel would fall under this category. The emphasis on the resident alien signifies that membership in the congregation is open to outsiders.”[54] Numbers 9:13-14 is more of an expectation, similar to Exodus 12:48-49, of what is to govern Israel’s Passover observance once the nation is firmly planted within the Promised Land. When Moses tells Ancient Israel that chuqah achat is to be followed by both the native and sojourner regarding the Passover, while previous instruction should be remembered, the Numbers 9:10-13 regulations about an unclean person or a willful omission of the Passover are more in view. The ger/sojourner within the community of Israel does not have to wait two or three months if contaminated by a corpse to keep the Passover, nor will he experience something more or less serious than a cutting off if Passover is ignored. The instruction is the same across the board. Harrison further states,

“The provision for the resident alien (MT...gēr) summarizes the legislation in Ex. 12:43-49. In Num. 9:14, however, the resident alien is the only kind of non-Israelite mentioned, the omitted groups being the foreigner (MT...ben-nēkār), the temporary resident (...tôšāb), and the hired laborer (...śākîr). The gēr and the native Israelite were to be treated equally, since the Israelites were once in the same condition themselves (Deut. 23:8 [MT 23:7]).”[55]

If there is any substantial difference to be observed between Exodus 12:43-49 and Numbers 9:14, it is not that the keeping of Passover is open to the ger/sojourner as well as the native Israelite. The key difference to be aware of is that Numbers 9:13 assigns that the willful omission of Passover—with this chuqah achat applying to both native and sojourner—merits a cutting off. What this all means for the community of Ancient Israel is obvious, if one does not want to be “cut off” and severely penalized. Dennis T. Olson explains, “the Passover is so significant that even foreigners who live among the Israelites should celebrate it.”[56] Nili S. Fox is even more direct, in actually asserting, “Observance of the Passover is mandatory both for Israelites and resident aliens,”[57] which would seemingly indicate that many of the sojourners within Israel might not have been such gerim for too long, upon entering into the community. Although there is debate over what karat can specifically mean[58] (discussed further), the Passover as Israel’s feast of freedom and deliverance is something that must be taken very seriously, and the ger/sojourner within Israel was widely expected to recognize it along with the native born.

So important was the Passover for later generations, most notably that of the Apostles, that we see how Paul’s instructions were “let us celebrate the feast...” (1 Corinthians 5:8), even if its emphasis was more on the sacrificial atonement of the Messiah Yeshua and not just the Exodus of Ancient Israel. (And even some Christian traditions today, as witnessed in the Great Vigil of Easter practiced in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, make a point of going through the account of the first Passover in anticipation of the work of Jesus they will celebrate on Easter Sunday. Such is the significance of Passover for many of God’s people, even if not always acknowledged in the form of a sedar.[59])

Numbers 15:15-16

“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD. There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.”

Numbers 15 includes two passages that use the terminology “one statute” and “one law and one ordinance” (Numbers 15:15-16), and also “one law” (Numbers 15:29-30). While close together, both of these occurrences appear as two sets of specific legislation are delivered.

Our first selection, Numbers 15:15-16, appears at the end of instruction detailing how various offerings are to be made, including: the olah or burnt offering, the minchah or cereal/grain offering, and the nesek or drink offering. These different offerings were to be made by the Israelites once they were established in Canaan, and could have applied for a variety of circumstances including “special vows or freewill offerings or festival offerings” (Numbers 15:3, NIV). Important to be acknowledged in this is that the Promised Land was to be very rich in produce (Numbers 13:27; 14:7), and the people would surely want to offer their thanks to God for His provision. Numbers 15:1-13 details,

“Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “When you enter the land where you are to live, which I am giving you, then make an offering by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering or a sacrifice to fulfill a special vow, or as a freewill offering or in your appointed times, to make a soothing aroma to the LORD, from the herd or from the flock. The one who presents his offering shall present to the LORD a grain offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of oil, and you shall prepare wine for the drink offering, one-fourth of a hin, with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb. Or for a ram you shall prepare as a grain offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil; and for the drink offering you shall offer one-third of a hin of wine as a soothing aroma to the LORD. When you prepare a bull as a burnt offering or a sacrifice, to fulfill a special vow, or for peace offerings to the LORD, then you shall offer with the bull a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-half a hin of oil; and you shall offer as the drink offering one-half a hin of wine as an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the LORD. Thus it shall be done for each ox, or for each ram, or for each of the male lambs, or of the goats. According to the number that you prepare, so you shall do for everyone according to their number. All who are native shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the LORD’” (Leviticus 15:1-13).

At the end of this instruction, we see the assertion kol-ha’ezrach ya’aseh-k’kah et-eileh, as “Every native shall do so with them” (ATS). Given the orientation of Israel implanted within the Land, those who are ezrach or born there should naturally—out of the blessed territory in which they have lived their whole lives—want to demonstrate their gratitude to the Lord in some tangible way, whether this be an offering made during one of the appointed times or a freewill offering.

These instructions are not only applicable to the ezrach/native, though, but also to the ger/sojourner. Numbers 15:14 anticipates that there will be those, originally outside of Israel, who will join His assembly, beginning with the two conjunctions v’ki-, “And when...” (NJPS). When this occurs, the ger/sojourner is to make his offering before God as well: “For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do” (Numbers 15:14, NIV). The way that the ger/sojourner within the Land of Israel is to make a burnt offering, grain/cereal offering, or drink offering, is the same way that any ezrach/native has done it.

Numbers 15:15-16 actually makes two summarizing remarks after it is specified how those within the Land are to make the different offerings. V. 15 says, chuqah achat l’khem v’l’ger hagar chuqat olam, “For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute” (RSV). It is made quite clear, “You and the stranger shall be alike before the LORD” (NJPS), as chuqah achat applies. When the ezrach/native or ger/sojourner go before the Lord to present an offering, both are to offer the same measurement; it is not as though one has to offer a smaller or greater amount in order for an offering to be acceptable before Him. Roy Gane concludes, “The same rules for sacrificial accompaniments apply to resident aliens (15:13-16). Verses 15-16 emphasize remarkable equality: Resident aliens share the same legal status before the Lord as other Israelites.”[60]

V. 16 makes the further statement, which does appear to be more general in scope—than just pertaining to how burnt, grain/cereal, and drink offerings are to be made—asserting the basic principle of how the same law standard applies to the native and sojourner in Israel. What is said is that torah achat u’mishpat echad is in place: “The same Torah and standard of judgment will apply to both you and the foreigner living with you” (CJB). To Friedman this implies, “Israelites are not privileged over anyone else. A country must treat everyone who lives in it fairly, with equality...”[61] Dozeman also observes, “The laws concerning the resident alien provide a social and theological window into Israel’s self-identity, because the Israelites viewed themselves as resident aliens in a land that God owned (Lev 25:23).”[62] The way that the Lord was to bless Ancient Israel, by giving them and welcoming them into the Land of Canaan as a possession, was to in turn instill within the Israelites the impetus to welcome sojourners in among them, who were not native born, but who would be represented equally before the Law.

Against some of these conclusions would be Jewish commentator Jacob Milgrom, who only thinks, “Although the stranger is placed on an equal footing with the citizen in civil law, there are a few significant differences between them in religious law.”[63] Such perceived differences between the native and the sojourner, perhaps the most notable one referred to being Deuteronomy 14:21, do need to be considered in our overall evaluation of the One Law issue (discussed further). But, why Milgrom would classify Numbers 15:1-16 as equality in “civil law” here, when it specifically pertains to offerings made to God and is most especially “religious,” is a bit odd.

The scene of how this Numbers instruction would have originally been given to the Israelites in the wilderness, who had non-Israelite sojourners in the camp, should be recognized. Olson details how for the immediate narrative of the Torah, “offerings are made at the tent of meeting at the heart and center of the camp. Any non-Israelite groups within the holy war camp of Israel were apparently located on the fringes of Israel’s camp, since no designated place was assigned to them in the camp’s arrangement in Numbers 2.”[64] Far be it from the Lord wanting sojourners, who had no tribal home of their own, to be left out on the distant edges, Olson concludes that given the tenor of Numbers 15:14-16, “these non-Israelite groups are welcomed into the center to offer their sacrifices and offerings. In this way, they are given the same status as native Israelites before God.”[65] Considering how both the native and sojourner were welcome in the camp of Ancient Israel, Olson actually thinks that “One hears echoes of a later affirmation...,”[66] and then quotes Paul in Galatians 3:28.[67] More immediate for the Tanach are appeals made to sentiments expressing the desire that foreign outsiders acknowledge the God of Israel in His Holy Place:

“Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name's sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name” (1 Kings 8:41-43).

“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath and holds fast My covenant; even those I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:6-7).

Referring to the Genesis 12:3 promise of Abrahamic blessing,[68] Harrison draws the conclusion, “While the ancient Israelites did not seem to have ‘evangelized’ in the modern Christian sense, their faith was nevertheless deemed to be a legitimate sphere of participation for potential” adherents.[69] To a degree, then, recognizing that torah achat applied to all within the broad community of Israel, could have held the missional imperative that Israel’s God is fair, holding all of His people to the same basic standard, whereas within law codes other than the Torah in the ANE, the same uniform standard was less likely, if at all, going to be present. If Ancient Israel were to demonstrate a proper obedience to the Lord, and an equal system of statutes governed its society, then would the result truly be seeing outsiders recognize the wisdom of His Law and a desire on their part to acknowledge Him as the Supreme Deity (cf. Deuteronomy 4:6)?

Numbers 15:29-30

“You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.”

The second assertion of “one law,” appearing in Numbers ch. 15, occurs after instruction is detailed regarding what to do to cover congregational or individual unintentional sin. The specific example of unintentional sin, provided by the text, is forgetting to present the first of one’s dough to the Lord. Yet, this example is extended out to include all of the other unintentional sins committed by the general population of Ancient Israel. A mechanism is in place so that specific offerings, either for the congregation or an individual, can be made before the Lord for restitution:

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “When you enter the land where I bring you, then it shall be, that when you eat of the food of the land, you shall lift up an offering to the LORD. Of the first of your dough you shall lift up a cake as an offering; as the offering of the threshing floor, so you shall lift it up. From the first of your dough you shall give to the LORD an offering throughout your generations. But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses, even all that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations, then it shall be, if it is done unintentionally, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one bull for a burnt offering, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin offering. Then the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and they will be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their error. So all the congregation of the sons of Israel will be forgiven, with the alien who sojourns among them, for it happened to all the people through error. Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven”’” (Numbers 15:17-28).

The most significant part of these directions to be sure is how there is a sacrifice available for sin that has been committed “unintentionally” (Numbers 15:22, 24) or “unwittingly” (NJPS). This concept is represented by the verb shagah and the noun shegagah, and how “a sin of this type may result from two causes: negligence or ignorance” (TWOT).[70] When a congregational offering is made for an unintentional sin committed, it would have a result affecting the entire community of Ancient Israel (Numbers 15:26), both the b’nei Yisrael or “children of Israel,” and “the stranger who sojourns among them” (RSV) or ger hagar b’tokham. The offense is, in fact, so broad sweeping, that Numbers 15:26 makes the point to say that kol-ha’am or “all the people” are affected by it. It is right to recognize that the presence of such a sacrifice is a definite sign of God’s grace.

Recognizing that committing unintentional sin applies to all within Israel, be the person ezrach/native or ger/sojourner, is clear from how the sacrifices offered affect both groups equally; both the ezrach/native or ger/sojourner are penalized “when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses, even all that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:22-23). While there are specific instructions in the Torah to be sure, such as those given to the Levitical priesthood or the leaders of Israel, instructions applicable to the general population should be recognized as being in view. Both the native and sojourner, the two main groups who composed the general population of Israel, are liable for the consequences of not keeping kol-ha’mitzvot or “all the commandments.” This would by necessity require both the native and the sojourner to be observing the same basic instruction, as what encompasses unintentional sin for the native, also encompasses unintentional sin for the sojourner.[71]

The summarizing remark about torah achat or “one law” in Numbers 15:29 could be the broadest of all the different passages we have thus far considered: “One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien” (NIV). Torah achat here certainly includes more than just the offering up of the animal sacrifices for native born and sojourner, and/or simply forgetting to offer the first of one’s dough to the Lord (cf. Numbers 15:18-21); it is specified to involve all that Moses had commanded (Numbers 15:22-23). It is safe to say that a considerable bulk of the Torah’s instructions are not only in view, but would necessarily apply to all within the broad community of Israel—and with this is a sure implication and impetus that all, whether native or sojourner, are to learn to keep as many commandments as they legitimately can (cf. Deuteronomy 31:12). One gets the distinct impression for a sojourner firmly embedded within the community, that he was widely indistinguishable from the native Israelite in terms of overall, daily adherence to the Torah. Yet, for a sojourner in Ancient Israel still learning what His Instruction was, God’s grace was there in an animal sacrifice to cover any inadvertent or unintentional wrongs, covering what are relatively minor infractions—the same as any native who might also overlook various commandments. And, those who commit wrong are, when it is pointed out, to receive the necessary correction, direction, and strive not to err again.

It is likely that in some cases when unintentional sin was committed, a native Israelite who had heard Moses’ Teaching his entire life, would have more readily remembered it once the sin was pointed out than a sojourner who had joined the community of Israel in later life, and steadily adopted adherence to commandments as he was acculturated into it. But the need for the sacrifice to cover unintentional sin is the same, and in the estimation of Harrison, “Once again, the principle of impartiality applied where a resident alien had been involved.”[72] To this, Noth adds that sojourners “are part of ‘the whole population’ and on this account shared in the ‘guilt’ incurred by all and therefore had to be included in the atonement.”[73] Even Milgrom has to acknowledge, “The ger who commits an inadvertent wrong is equally liable as the citizen to bring the required expiatory sacrifice,” further describing, “The implicit reason is that the Holy Land will become polluted by sins committed upon it, be they ritual or ethical, whether by citizen or stranger”[74] (cf. Leviticus 18:24-30). Given the fact that corporate atonement is in view, the common need for all of the community of Israel, whether native or sojourner, male and female, to adhere to and learn from the Torah is apparent—if one person sinned, no matter what their social status or distinction, it is to be regarded as if all the general population had sinned.

There is, however, no sacrifice specified for the intentional sin of anyone. While the ezrach/native and ger/sojourner in Ancient Israel could be cleared of unintentional sin via an offering, if the same persons blatantly disregarded the Law and Word of God b’yad ramah or “with a high hand” (Numbers 15:30, RSV), then this will incur the consequence of being cut off and having to bear the guilt of sin:

“But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien [min-ha’ezrach u’min-ha’ger], that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him” (Numbers 15:30-31).

Deliberate dereliction from keeping God’s Torah is considered to be “blaspheming,” “reviling” (RSV), or “affront[ing]” (NRSV) Him.[75] The consequence of this is v’nik’retah ha’nefesh ha’hiv m’qerev ammah, “that person shall be cut off from among his people” (ATS). Not only does the native born of Israel face a cutting off, but so does the sojourner. A sin such as blasphemy, idolatry, or some other grave affront to the sanctity of the Lord and His holiness is in view here.

What does the penalty of karat really involve? There is an array of potential uses of this verb, as “In addition to the literal meaning of this root, ‘to cut off’ (Exo 4:25; 1Sam 5:4) and ‘to cut down’ (a ‘woodcutter’ in Isa 14:8) there is the metaphorical meaning to root out, eliminate, remove, excommunicate or destroy by a violent act of man or nature” (TWOT).[76] The verb karat might be vague at times, given that it has a variety of potential applications, but the penalty for intentional sin against the Lord is most likely capital punishment.[77] If karat is not intended to be capital punishment, though, and is instead exile, then Olson adequately describes how it “was considered a kind of death itself.”[78] Dozeman’s observations are also useful to keep in mind:

“The exact meaning of this phrase...is not clear. It may have a collective sense, meaning a family line is discontinued. This meaning would qualify the more individual focus of 14:26-38. But it may also be more individual in its meaning, in which case it would signify a loss of status, excommunication, death, or even a judgment by God after death. The bad report of the land by the leaders of Israel (who die instantly) and the murmuring of the people (who are condemned to die in the wilderness) are instances of premeditated transgression that fall under the final category.”[79]

Those who are cut off for intentional sins against the Lord are cut off regardless of their bloodline: the ezrach/native and ger/sojourner within Ancient Israel stand equally accountable before Moses’ Teaching (Numbers 15:22). While sojourners who had once acknowledged foreign gods could be more apt to rebel against HaShem, there can certainly be sojourners who were more faithful to Him than native Israelites who were lured by sin.

What is most important about Numbers 15:29-30 for us today is not that torah achat or “one law” applied for both the native and sojourner; what is most significant is that both groups within Ancient Israel had a problem with intentional sin for which the Torah provides no remedy. It may be important to recognize that there are not two totally different standards applied to the native and sojourner, but it is far more important to recognize here how only the Messiah to come would be able, by the sacrifice of Himself, to offer complete redemption and forgiveness for deliberate sins. It is inappropriate for us to consider the One Law issue in a vacuum, and not evaluate the gravity of our Lord Yeshua having to come and provide permanent atonement for human sin!

What the “One Law” Passages Communicate

In looking at some of the principal Torah passages which are important to adherents of a One Law ideology, each of them may be summarized as follows:

•

Eating of the Passover lamb, and thus being considered a “native of the land,” requires either the native born of Israel or a sojourner to be circumcised, as torah achat applies to both. This means that a native born of Israel uncircumcised may not eat the Passover, as much as an uncircumcised sojourner may not eat. The key issue, though, is the full remembrance of the Passover, and not circumcision (Exodus 12:48-49).

•      The terminology torah achat can be used to describe a considerable overlap of Pentateuchal instructions, such as those regulating the guilt offering and sin offering (Leviticus 7:7).

•      Whether it be capital punishment for blasphemy, or the same instructions for repayment of damages, mishpat echad applies to the native and sojourner in Israel (Leviticus 24:22), as opposed to the common ANE occurrence when natives and strangers in a society would be held to two different standards, with also the presence of different levels of “natives” such as the monarchy/ruling or commoner/peasant class.

•      The same statute or chuqah achat is to be followed whether a native or sojourner keeps the Passover, or fails to observe the Passover (Numbers 9:14).

•      When burnt offerings, cereal/grain offerings, or drink offerings are made before the Lord, the same standard of measurement is to be held, because chuqah achat is to be followed by the native or sojourner making the offering—itself supported by how there is torah achat u’mishpat echad regulating jurisprudence within the community (Numbers 15:15-16).

•      The same law or torah achat applies when unintentional sin is committed by either the native or sojourner in Israel, with the severe penalty of karat looming for intentional sin (Numbers 15:29-30). Such unintentional sin, though, regards adherence to all of the instructions delivered via Moses to the general population (Numbers 15:22-23).

It is safe to say that the terminology of “one law” has been thrown around a bit too much by both proponents and critics of a One Law ideology, without enough careful thought or attention to what these passage meant in context for Ancient Israel. Yet, the specific uses of “one law” or “one statute” (or other similar terminology) seen in the Pentateuch are certainly supportive of an ethos of one primary standard to be adhered to by all within the community, in order for the people of God to truly stand unique in a world that often holds to a double or triple or quadruple standard. There was not a Torah code for the native of Israel to follow, and then another Torah code for the sojourner within Israel to follow. There was one primary Torah code for all to be instructed by, in upstanding ways of holiness.

Knowing that societies contemporary to Ancient Israel would not have held both its natives and resident outsiders to the same basic code of conduct, is most serious for how these “One Law” passages affected later codes of civil justice. Considering the widespread influence of these passages not only in the course of human history, but also salvation history, Milgrom’s thought, “It applies only to the case given in context; it is not to be taken as a generalization,”[80] is most limiting and neutering of these verses’ overall Biblical and philosophical significance. While there were going to be some differences in Ancient Israel between those who were natives or sojourners within the community, and other internal differences—we should not think that the differences are as stark or drastic as various Jewish interpreters have wanted them to be. The tenor of the different passages emphasizing “one law,” is not to draw readers’ attention to rigid distinctions between people or groups or sub-groups within Ancient Israel, but rather the commonality among them. The passages we have addressed are surely not the exclusive Torah practices where “one law” was present to be followed by all in the community of Israel.

While Torah readers should not think that the native Israelite and ger/sojourner were exactly the same—the native Israelite and sojourner had far more in common than not. R.J.D. Knauth astutely observes how “The resident alien in pentateuchal law would seem generally to be envisioned to be subject to Israelite law, just as a native Israelite would be....[O]ne gains the distinct general impression that resident aliens were envisioned as being accorded equal treatment [by] the law (Lev 19:33-34; cf. Deut 24:14-15, 17-18), with only a few exceptions.”[81] A similar conclusion can be witnessed in other theological reference sources.[82] To summarize the significance of the different “one law” passages:

1.  There are some specific places in the Pentateuch where it had to be emphasized that “one law” or a uniform instruction had to be followed by the native and sojourner in Ancient Israel, where no ambiguity in awareness or in application could really be claimed, likely where a sojourner could have been treated unfairly.

2.  The places where “one law” is specifically emphasized, draw readers’ attention to commonality between the natives and sojourners in Ancient Israel, not differences.

3.  Natives and sojourners in Ancient Israel had to both receive the same atonement for their violation of the Torah, meaning that they were both expected to heed and be taught by the same set of Instruction, and not make efforts to ignore it.

Other verses to be considered, which demonstrate a considerable degree of equivalence between the ezrach/native and ger/sojourner within Ancient Israel, that could also be evaluated and concern the sojourner’s adherence to Moses’ Teaching, include:

•      Both native and sojourner were to keep the Sabbath: “[B]ut the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you” (Exodus 12:10; cf. 23:10; Deuteronomy 5:14).

•      Both native and sojourner deserve a fair trial: “Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him’” (Deuteronomy 1:16).

•      Both native and sojourner have access to cities of refuge: “These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there” (Numbers 35:15).

•      Both native and sojourner were to observe the Day of Atonement: “This shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you” (Leviticus 16:29).

•      Both native and sojourner were to follow the same purification rites after eating meat from an animal that died of natural causes: “When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean” (Leviticus 17:15).

•      Both native and sojourner were to adhere to a most serious sexual purity: “But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you” (Leviticus 18:26).[83]

•      Everyone in the community of Israel, from the men and women, to the children, to the sojourner, was to hear and follow Moses’ Teaching: “[W]hen all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law[84]” (Deuteronomy 31:11-12).

•      The sojourner in Ancient Israel, was to actually be treated by the native born as though he were native born: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

There is not an exactness between the ger/sojourner and ezrach/native, but there is an approximate equivalence for these groups within Ancient Israel. The ger/sojourner ≠ ezrach/native Israelite, but the ger/sojourner ≈ ezrach/native Israelite. The ger/sojourner, who entered into Ancient Israel, was to take steady instruction from the Torah, to the point where he could be circumcised, keep the Passover, and be regarded as a native. Yet, the ger/sojourner entering into the community, even going through circumcision, could never totally be the same as the ezrach/native. Only a native born into Israel could legitimately claim the story of the Exodus and wilderness journey not just as a part of his spiritual heritage, but also his ethnic and cultural heritage. And, even though it is most obvious, the native, who was raised in a culture and environment of Torah adherence his entire life, had definite advantages over a sojourner who entered into the community of Israel in later life.

Moving forward in our analysis of the One Law subject matter, what do these passages communicate to Messiah followers? The second half of this investigation will consider what the One Law passages just analyzed should convey to God’s people living in this current era of the New Covenant, including: their proper application in light of the work of Yeshua, various objections issued to all Believers today needing to look to the Torah for guidance in holiness, and some challenges manifested today that need to be overcome. What much of the debate over the One Law issue is about, is not so much over interpreting the various verses that detail “one law” or “one statute” from the original setting of the Pentateuch for Ancient Israel, but rather their application in a Twenty-First Century, developing Messianic movement—a faith community which is very much wrestling with issues of Jewish and non-Jewish inclusion, equality, and its mission and relationship to not only the Synagogue and the Church, but the greater world. What does much of this “one law” emphasis mean for the post-resurrection era? This is where there is a huge amount of emotion displayed, and a number of ministerial and organizational agendas in play.

One Law is Only for Israel

When looking at the different Torah passages which describe the concept of “one law,” no reader can deny how “one law” or “one statute” applies to those within the community of Israel. A great deal of the contention which presently manifests itself, particularly over today’s non-Jewish Believers who are a part of the Messianic movement and have committed themselves to a lifestyle of Torah observance, concerns ecclesiology (the study of God’s elect) and whether or not they are a part of Israel via their faith in Yeshua—or a part of a separate “Church.” There is a range of Messianic opinions and positions on not only what it means for the Jewish people to compose “Israel,” but whether or not non-Jewish Believers are even or can be a part of the community of Israel as well.

The position represented by Outreach Israel Ministries and TNN Online, which has many adherents in the Messianic world, is that the Creator God has only one group of elect or chosen: Israel. Yeshua the Messiah’s promise to Peter was “upon this rock I will build [oikodomēsō] My [assembly]” (Matthew 16:18), with the source language in Matthew’s Gospel appropriated directly from the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 33:7, where it is said “I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel and will rebuild [MT: benitim; LXX: oikodomēsō] them as they were at first” (cf. Jeremiah 31:4; Psalm 88:5). Our Lord’s intention was not to go and build a separate “Church,”[85] but instead He came to bring about the restoration of Israel—something which is to affect both the Jewish people and the nations (Isaiah 49:6; Luke 2:32; et. al.).

In His mission and teachings, Yeshua explicitly said that He came to uphold the Torah of Moses, and that eschatological rewards and penalties would be assigned to those who failed to highly regard its commandments (Matthew 5:17-19). During His Last Supper, Yeshua exclaimed “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20), and the Tanach promise of New Covenant involves not only permanent forgiveness of sins—brought about by His sacrifice—but the supernatural transcription of the Torah onto human hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27). This is something that all of sinful humanity is to partake of, as the work of the Holy Spirit is non-discriminatory toward one’s ethnicity (Acts 15:8-9).

The group of elect that the Messiah’s work has helped see definitely emerge is labeled by the Apostle Paul to be the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13), and it is something of which all who place their trust in Him—be they Jewish or otherwise—may consider themselves a part. The nations are very clearly considered to be “fellow heirs and fellow members” (Ephesians 3:6) along with the Jewish people within the community of Israel, albeit an expanded and enlarged community of Israel, with the coming together and reconciliation of Jewish and non-Jewish people in the Savior being a sign of the great cosmic redemption to come (Ephesians 3:10). Those who compose such an Israel will not only all participate in the end-time restoration of the Kingdom, but should look to God’s Torah as a key source of teaching in holiness, with Yeshua being the goal or climax (telos) of the Torah (Romans 10:4). Living a life in accordance with God’s Law, empowered by the Spirit, will undoubtedly aid all Believers to be “A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9; cf. Isaiah 43:20; Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6).

Ultimately, the one negative downside, to this “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), is that it will only be composed of those who have acknowledged Israel’s Messiah. The sad predicament is that there will be Jewish people who are cut off from Israel because of their personal unbelief (Romans 11:20; cf. 9:6), but not because they are unchosen of God or somehow disowned by Him. The inclusion of non-Jewish Believers as a part of Israel, the grafting in of wild olive branches to the olive tree, requires that they afford the Jewish people respect and honor—lest they themselves are cut off because of arrogance and disrespect (Romans 11:17-19, 21).

Looking at the Apostolic Scriptures’ emphasis, of how the sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua and possessing faith in Him, has allowed the nations to enter into the community of Israel, it is not surprising why there was great debate in the First Century—and even today—over this. Is it not true that if a ger/sojourner wanted to fully keep the Passover, he had to be circumcised and then be reckoned as a “native of the land” (Exodus 12:48-49)? The challenge is in recognizing how throughout the Tanach, Israel is not a people chiefly defined by circumcision—but by the activity of God in association with the Passover and the Exodus. In his Numbers commentary, Olson describes how “Just as the two Passover meals in Exodus and Numbers mark the eve of a new chapter in God’s relationship to Israel, the Passover meal that Jesus celebrates with the disciples is the eve of God’s new act of salvation in and through Jesus’ death and crucifixion.”[86] Referencing John 1:29,[87] Wenham asserts, “The New Testament sees Jesus as the true paschal lamb.”[88]

The Kingdom of Israel that Yeshua promised to (re)build is one which is not only rooted in the messages and themes of the Exodus, but His own death and resurrection—and a person’s response to this good news is what reckons him or her a part of such a community, no different than how the faith of Abraham reckoned him in covenant relationship long before his circumcision (Genesis 15:6; cf. Galatians 3:6, 8). Circumcision status does not matter as it concerns a man’s calling into faith in Him, but a steady obedience guided by the example of the Lord Messiah and abiding in Him does matter (1 Corinthians 7:18-20).[89] Israel, the Passover, and the requirements for the outsider are to be (re)oriented around what Israel’s Messiah has accomplished.

Many objections are raised by some of today’s Messianic Jews, to the idea that non-Jewish Believers via their faith in Messiah Yeshua, should be considered a part of the community of Israel, likely on par with themselves in a significant way. Much of early Messianic Jewish ecclesiology was built upon a foundation of dispensationalism, which claims that God actually has two groups of elect, considered to be: the nation of Israel/Jewish people, and the Christian Church. Working from this basis, much of Messianic Judaism only modified it and would claim that the Jewish people and the Church, being God’s two groups of chosen, operated under the broad umbrella of the “Commonwealth of Israel.” As David H. Stern wrote in his Messianic Jewish Manifesto, that “[W]hen I call myself both Jewish and Messianic, I am thereby identifying with both the Jewish community and the Church.” He also stated that “I have two hats, I am part of two communities.”[90] Messianic Judaism was to be the middle party, overlapping both the Jewish people and the Church. These original propositions have now been developed in multiple directions by other sectors within Messianic Judaism, much of which is designed to theologically establish Israel as almost exclusively being a community of ethnic Jews—not ultimately being an enlarged community incorporating the redeemed of the Jewish people and the redeemed from the nations, in service to one another for the purposes of God’s Kingdom.

While Messianic Jews who hold to this kind of ideology are appreciative of evangelical Christians being enriched by their Hebraic Roots, they do not often think that such Believers should be instructed and molded by God’s Torah to the same degree as a Jewish person. They would not press the common dispensational idea that a part of “rightly dividing” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV)[91] the Scriptures is thinking that the only significant parts of the Bible relevant to non-Jews are possibly just the Pauline letters. But, many of today’s Messianic Jews would not necessarily encourage non-Jewish Believers to think of the Torah or Tanach as being a part of their spiritual heritage the same as a Jewish person naturally would. (Of course, unlike today’s Messianic Jews, a non-Jewish Believer cannot claim the Torah and Tanach as a part of his or her ethnic and cultural heritage.)

So when you work from a dispensational framework of God having two groups of elect, what does this do to the concept of non-Jewish Believers being made an equal part of the Commonwealth of Israel via their faith (Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6)? The common argument made by various Messianic Jews is that the Jewish and Christian members of this entity are to be likened to the British Commonwealth of Nations, namely how the monarch of Great Britain rules over the United Kingdom, but also has subjects in far off and independent lands like Australia or New Zealand. Thus, it might be said that non-Jewish Believers are to be viewed like those countries whose monarch sits half-way across the world, and are actually republics in all but name! As much admiration as I might have for the current Queen and her work in the Commonwealth,[92] such a Commonwealth of Israel model is very much separated from the classical meaning of politeia, “the right to be a member of a sociopolitical entity, citizenship” (BDAG).[93] The classical Greek meaning of politeia does not imply a kind of citizenship where a single monarch rules over a collection of separate states, but rather of either a single government or a way of conduct within a society (sometimes set within the context of a city).[94] The Commonwealth of Israel is a single state ruled by King Messiah, albeit one which is internally diverse in terms of its ethnic makeup, but which undeniably has a distinctively Jewish component to it (cf. John 4:22; Romans 3:1-2; 11:29).[95]

Another key definition of politeia to consider is “behavior in accordance with standards expected of a respectable citizen, way of life, conduct” (BDAG),[96] and God’s Instruction to Israel contained in the Torah is something that non-Jewish Believers are to look to for guidance, just as their Jewish brethren: “so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). What we are witnessing, though, in some parts of today’s broad Messianic community, is not only a clash over whether non-Jewish Believers should consider Moses’ Teaching as being relevant and important for their lives the same as any Jewish person naturally would—but also whether we are all a part of the same Commonwealth of Israel or are parts of two separate entities as put forth by dispensationalism (Israel and the Church).

This clash of ideologies has already been manifested to a degree in past history, as one is focused around a widespread Jewish way of thinking often centered around a group’s distinctions being most important—and a widespread evangelical Christian way of thinking often centered around common faith in the Messiah being most important. One group intends to see that the Messianic movement really just morphs into another branch of Judaism, and another intends to see that the Messianic movement becomes something that transcends both the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church, employing the best that both have to offer to aid the mission of God’s people making a difference in the world. One group tends to emphasize the distinctions people possess as being more important than common faith, and another sees distinctions as critical tools to be appreciated by all in order to empower common faith.

Admittedly, our ministry does not see a significant resolution within the broad Messianic world to what the Commonwealth of Israel actually composes anytime soon, among the different opinions present (and others likely to be formulated). Much of the One Law discussion and debate is focused around ecclesiology and whether or not non-Jewish Believers are an equal part of the community of Israel along with Jewish Believers, and hence should be instructed from Moses’ Teaching as well.

We might disagree with some of the dispensational-esque points of view present within sectors of Messianic Judaism, but our primary duty is to adhere to Yeshua’s steadfast prayer “that they may be one, just as We are one” (John 17:22). We have to have the patience to let the Father’s plan to restore all of His people take its course via time, and recognize that ultimately He is in control. The type of unity that the Father and Son have, demonstrated in some degree among His people, is only something He can bring about. As we place things in the Lord’s hands, it should cause us to be more concerned with how we as individuals and congregations are helping to contribute to His purposes, and how we can improve our spiritual effectiveness (cf. Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42). This is far more constructive than spending more time and attention pointing out why we may disagree with others—who may very well achieve many good things for Him, although maybe not everything He wants.

Ger and Proselutos:

Is the Torah also only for proselytes?

Not all of today’s Messianic Jews believe in a Commonwealth of Israel model that is similar to that of dispensational theology. They do believe that all Believers, Jewish and non-Jewish, are a part of the same overall community of Israel. Yet, while evangelical Believers who have entered into the Messianic movement and embraced a lifestyle of Torah observance might be perceived as a good thing—it is not necessarily something that is required, or possibly even expected of them, in some ways. Some think that only ethnic Jewish people and converted proselytes are really required to follow Moses’ Teaching; non-Jewish Believers can follow Moses’ Teaching if they are so inclined. The status of the non-Jewish Believer in Israel is likened to a kind of ger, but not so much the person described in the One Law passages (and should possibly even be viewed as just a kind of traveler in the community).

It seems only natural for Jewish Believers, who know without doubt that their ancestors were at the base of Mount Sinai when Moses was given the Law, to follow it. The Torah is an undeniable part of their ethnic and cultural heritage. But, is the position of a non-Jewish Believer within Israel somehow similar to the ancient ger? The Torah does specify how “one law” or “one statute,” using a variety of specific examples (discussed previously), basically applies equally to the native and sojourner. But what is the ger, actually? One view that has gained some ground is the thought that the ger is not so much a sojourner or alien, an outsider welcomed into Ancient Israel—but instead is a “proselyte.” The Orthodox Jewish ArtScroll Tanach, most notably (and as a resource employed by many Messianics), renders the Hebrew ger as “proselyte” in Exodus 12:48; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:15, 29; and as “convert” in Numbers 9:14. Does ger really mean “proselyte,” or is this a theological value judgment made by the ATS translators?

What we must immediately pause and note, especially in weighing what is intended by the Pentateuch employing the term ger, is how in Biblical Studies and in modern-day Judaism the English word “proselyte” can have different connotations. In Biblical Studies, using the term “proselyte” can have a general meaning more consistent with what Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus defines as, “one who has been converted from one religion, sect, etc. to another,”[97] with many of the details left either open-ended or undefined. Judaism and Christianity and other religions all have “proselytes” in this sense. When a theologian like Kaiser comments on Leviticus 24:10-23, and speaks of how “the blasphemer’s father was a proselyte...,”[98] he is largely concerned with someone who has committed himself to following Israel’s God. But as the Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies indicates for us, “Later rabbinic material...describes a conversion process that requires study of the law, circumcision for males, baptism by immersion, and sacrifice,”[99] which is definitely what ATS and various other Jewish works have more in mind in translating ger as “proselyte.” Although such a process was present in Second Temple Judaism, is this what was originally intended or implied by the term ger?

The Ger

Knauth provides us with the following summary of the Hebrew noun ger, its root gvr, and related Semitic terms, from the Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch:

“Gēr is a noun deriving from the Hebrew root gwr (‘to sojourn, tarry as a sojourner’), with likely cognates in Arabic (‘neighbor, patron, protector’), Ethiopic (‘neighbor’), Ugaritic (‘dweller’?) and Aramaic (‘client’; later Christian Palestinian usage associates it with proselytes or neighbors and in some cases with adultery). A connection with the Akkadian gerû (‘to be hostile’) and its participial form gārû (‘enemy’) is also possible, arguably tying in with Hebrew roots gwr II (=grh: ‘to attack, strive’) and gwr III (=ygr: ‘to be afraid’). The root is also attested in Phoenician personal names, where it would seem to denote dependence or client status in relation to a deity, as in ‘client/protégé of [deity].’ In a Moabite inscription (the Mesha Stela) it appears to designate a distinct people-group, male and female, within Israel.”[100]

The ger in the Torah is largely someone who traveled alongside of the Ancient Israelites in the wilderness, and other than a difference of ethnicity, was to be treated basically the same as any native born of Israel.[101] Such gerim were anticipated to join the population of Israel, once the Promised Land had been subdued and settled. Knauth details how the “gēr refers generally to a person not native to the local area and thus usually without family ties or landed property.”[102] The legal status of a ger was much closer to that of a native Israelite than not, and for the Thirteenth Century B.C.E. would have been a feature of Israel’s Law that stood in contrast to other contemporary codes. However, we do see that the ancient ger is given a few allowances that native born Israelites do not have. Among these are included how the ger could face permanent slavery as inherited property (Leviticus 25:39-43, 46, 54-55) unlike the native, and how a ger could be allowed to eat an animal that died of natural causes (Deuteronomy 14:21). In Knauth’s estimation, at least in some targeted places, “the ‘alien’ was clearly treated differently as a ‘second-class citizen.’”[103]

Both of these examples might be more easily understood not in terms of two tiers of citizenship somehow depicted in the Torah, but rather how most sojourners within Ancient Israel were often very poor people in need of considerable aid, who would probably have not had large extended families like native Israelites most often had to help them (and perhaps the provision allotted to sojourners would be a feature that attracted many into Israel). The possibility of being a perpetual slave in the house of a master with his provision, as unpleasant as we might think it is today, could be better than being almost completely without. Being shown a bit of kindness by being allowed to eat an animal that died of natural causes (in many cases likely due to an accidental death), as stomach wrenching as it may be, is surely better than starving to death.[104] Milgrom describes the most likely economic reality, “Although some gerim did manage to amass wealth (Lev. 25:37), most were poor and were bracketed with the poor as recipients of welfare (cf. Lev. 19:10; 23:22; 25:6).”[105] No Bible reader can easily overlook how the Torah is most concerned with the ger, along with the needy or destitute:

•      “Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger [ger]. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:10).

•      “When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien [ger]. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 23:22).

•      “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien [ger] by giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18).

If there were exceptions for the ger, in terms of “You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it...” (Deuteronomy 14:21), then these are to be understood principally in terms of the relatively common, low economic status of the sojourner. Knauth considers the ger to be among “particularly vulnerable groups in Israelite society...and [is] thus afforded a number of special protections in pentateuchal law.”[106] Also not to be overlooked is how in Deuteronomy 14:21, the ger asher-b’sh’areykha or “the alien who is within your gates” (NKJV), could be an anticipation of a “Canaanite subject in Israel/Judah” (HALOT),[107] having been conquered and deserving of some mercy with being given an animal for eating.

The thrust of the Torah is that the ger is to not only be allowed into the community of Israel, but is to be treated essentially as no different than a native Israelite, although it is also true that the ger is not exactly the same. In Deuteronomy 1:16, Moses admonishes, “Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien [ger] who is with him.” All persons within the community of Ancient Israel were to be instructed by the Law (Deuteronomy 31:12). But while such fair and equal treatment was a major thrust of the Torah as originally given, the history of the Tanach is often a testament to how once established within the Promised Land, its instructions were not often remembered. The ger/sojourner was originally counted within the broad community of Israel (Deuteronomy 29:10-13; cf. Joshua 8:33), but as D.I. Block observes, “Second-class treatment of sojourners may...be documented from later history. The gêrîm noted separately in David’s census (2 Ch. 2:17 [MT 16])[108] became the basis of Solomon’s work crews, some of which consisted entirely of sojourners (cf. 1 Ch. 22:2).”[109]

The Proselyte

Is there a textual basis to support the idea that “one law” or “one statute” does not apply to some “sojourner,” as it were—but instead for a person who has undergone the formal ritual of a proselyte? This would only make natives and proselytes as the two parties within the community of Israel really required to follow the Torah, with others only to take some kind of residual or echoing instruction from it. Before examining how the ritual of a proselyte developed in Second Temple Judaism, we should acknowledge that there are commentators, who to some degree or another, would closely associate the role of the ger/sojourner, and the later class of the proselyte to Judaism, as being essentially identical.

Referencing Exodus 12:48-49 in his Numbers commentary, the instructions on how to keep the Passover and how a ger circumcised could be reckoned as a native, Noth states, this “deal[s] specifically with the right of participation in the Passover celebration, [and] that by ‘stranger’ [ger] is meant someone who does not belong to the circle of fully privileged Israelites, but who yet, by acceptance of circumcision, has given himself to the service of the God of Israel.”[110] We have largely concurred with this conclusion in our previous examination of Exodus 12:48-49. But Noth goes further, remarking that the ger who underwent circumcision “is a ‘proselyte’ in the terminology of a later period.”[111] And indeed, it is really not until one arrives in the much later Rabbinical materials, that the term ger is applied to “a proselyte, convert to Judaism” (Jastrow).[112] Commenting later on Numbers 15:1-16, it is clear that Noth’s conclusions are a bit clouded by his commitment to the critical tradition and Leviticus-Numbers being the product of a so-called Priestly writer who is many centuries removed from Moses, as he states:

“This would suggest that by ‘strangers who sojourn with you’ is meant ‘proselytes’, i.e. people of non-Israelite origin who have attached themselves to the Jerusalem cult...”[113] (emphasis mine).

Milgrom, as a Jewish commentator and an adherent to the critical view as well (but probably less so than Noth), is a bit more careful. He legitimately recognizes how within the Torah, “It must be remembered that the ger, the resident alien of biblical times, is a far remove from the ger, the convert of rabbinic times.”[114] Yet, examining how later centuries of Jewish tradition interpreted the Torah passages of a ger entering into Israel, he concludes, “the Jews of the third century B.C.E. were not in violation of the Torah for by then they had reinterpreted the Torah’s ger to denote the convert.”[115] He is most likely making reference to the fact that in the Greek Septuagint, ger is most frequently rendered as prosēlutos, from which we obviously get the English term “proselyte.” The different One Law passages we have previously addressed from the Hebrew Torah have rendered ger with prosēlutos:

“And if any proselyte shall come to you [tis proselthē pros humas prosēlutos] to keep the passover to the Lord, thou shalt circumcise every male of him, and then shall he approach to sacrifice it, and he shall be even as the original inhabitant of the land; no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law to the native, and to the proselyte [tō proselthonti prosēlutō] coming among you” (Exodus 12:48-49, LXE).

“There shall be one judgment for the stranger [tō prosēlutō] and the native, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 24:22, LXE).

“And if there should come to you a stranger [proselthē pros humas prosēlutos] in your land, and should keep the passover to the Lord, he shall keep it according to the law of the passover and according to its ordinance: there shall be one law for you, both for the stranger [tō prosēlutō], and for the native of the land” (Numbers 9:14, LXE).

“There shall be one law for you and for the strangers [tois prosēlutois] abiding among you, a perpetual law for your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. There shall be one law and one ordinance for you, and for the stranger [tō prosēlutō] that abides among you” (Numbers 15:15-16, LXE).

“There shall be one law for the native among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that abides among them [tō prosēlutō tō proskeimenō en autois], whosoever shall commit a trespass unwillingly. And whatever soul either of the natives or of the strangers [tōn prosēlutōn] shall do any thing with a presumptuous hand, he will provoke God; that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Numbers 15:29-30, LXE).

In the First Century period, when the Greek-speaking Jewish community would read prosēlutos from the LXX, it would most likely be understood in terms of someone who had gone through the formal process of becoming a convert to Judaism, like a Greek or Roman in their midst could have done. The First Century B.C.E. Jewish philosopher Philo expresses his view of how Moses calls those who cross into the community of Israel “proselytes”:

“And these last he calls proselytes (prosēlytos), from the fact of their having come over (proselēlythenai) to a new and God-fearing constitution, learning to disregard the fabulous inventions of other nations, and clinging to unalloyed truth” (Special Laws 1.51).[116]

There should be no question that many of those Greeks and Romans who became proselytes to ancient Judaism (before the arrival of Yeshua) were good people, who made the right choice. Becoming proselytes enabled them to completely cut themselves off from a paganism that had once kept them in darkness and ignorant of the One True God. It kept them devoted and anchored to a community of people who were chosen to represent the goodness of the Creator to the nations.

The question that does not often get asked, though, is whether the Septuagint translators—two to three centuries before the ministry of Yeshua—actually intended prosēlutos to mean a formal convert to Judaism. When prosēlutos appears in the Apostolic Scriptures (Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43), a formal convert to ancient Judaism is intended. There are some terms which appear in the Greek LXX, though, which do not always correspond to later meanings witnessed in the Greek New Testament.

The term herpeton, rendering remes in Genesis 9:3, does not mean that Noah and company could eat “every reptile” (LXE), but has to be understood with Hebrew influence in mind regarding “a number of small four-footed animals” (Louw-Nida Lexicon).[117] In Peter’s vision, though, there “were all kinds of animals and reptiles [herpeta] and birds” (Acts 10:12, RSV). Likewise, Paul says the pagans have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles [herpetōn]” (Romans 1:23, RSV). These latter two uses would include snakes and lizards, whereas it is most difficult to see snakes and lizards in the diet of Noah and Abraham.

More closely associated with the term prosēlutos would be the Septuagint usage of sunagōgē, which often renders either the Hebrew qahal or edah.[118] Sunagōgē is related to the verb sunagō, which simply means “to cause to come together, gather” (BDAG).[119] When sunagōgē actually appears in the Pentateuch, it depicts the gathering of Israel in the wilderness, and not a Jewish house of worship that would become known as a “synagogue.” In its New Testament usage, though, sunagōgē does most often depict a Jewish house of worship or study.

The term prosēlutos can have a different meaning in the Greek Septuagint from its usage in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, given the three centuries between them. The LS lexicon, primarily interested in classical uses, actually has “one that has arrived at a place, a sojourner”[120] as its first definition of prosēlutos. The Thayer lexicon has its first definition of prosēlutos as “a stranger, alien,” noting how it is the frequent LXX rendering for ger.[121] The noted lexicographer Frederick W. Danker details that literally prosēlutos is “‘one who has arrived at a place,’ therefore ‘a stranger,’”[122] and then discusses the later development of the proselytization process in Second Temple Judaism. The correspondence of the Greek prosēlutos as a kind of sojourner or traveler, just as the Hebrew ger was, aligns with the related verb proserchomai, simply meaning “to move towards” (BDAG).[123] The New English Translation of the Septuagint, in the One Law passages we have examined, actually renders prosēlutos as “guest.”

So is it at all possible for prosēlutos in the Greek LXX, to mean something other than a formal convert-proselyte to Judaism, as prosēlutos is used in the Apostolic Scriptures? In the estimation of at least one scholar, David M. Moffitt of Duke University, previous lexicographers and interpreters have largely had to only consult the Septuagint, Philo’s works, and the New Testament to derive the (theological) meaning of prosēlutos. He acknowledges, “In the context of early Judaism, the word [ger] plainly was applied to Jewish converts. Additionally, the term [prosēlutos] bears the meaning ‘convert’ in Hellenistic Jewish texts from the 1st Century C.E. By the end of the Second Temple period [prosēlutos] and probably [ger] could refer to converts to Judaism.” Yet, he does issue a stern caution about how far back this can be pushed: “Whether or not one can conclude that those translating the LXX centuries earlier rendered [ger] as [prosēlutos] because they already understood [ger] to mean ‘convert’ is a different question entirely.”[124] He goes on to describe how within the archives at Duke, a Third Century B.C.E. manuscript fragment (P.Duk.inv. 727), has demonstrated a non-religious, secular usage of prosēlutos to simply designate “foreigners” or “sojourners,” in this case those participating in a monetary transaction. The main conclusion of Moffit, regarding this fragmentary evidence, is,

“[T]his is a draft of a legal document (corrections in a second hand are evident throughout) addressing some kind of transaction and/or dispute. Second, the date and location of the papyrus indicates that the text comes from roughly the time period in which the first portion of the LXX was translated in Alexandria. That is to say, the papyrus proves that the word [prosēlutos] was in use in Egypt around the time that the Torah was translated into Greek.”[125]

While more research and investigation into prosēlutos needs to be conducted (and Moffitt acknowledged this to me in private e-mail correspondence), it is becoming likely that prior to the popularization of the Septuagint in Greek-speaking Jewish communities, and with terms taking on a more theological focus—that a word like prosēlutos originally had a neutral meaning for those in Ptolemaic Egypt. Prosēlutos simply meaning a sojourner or resident, without any sense of implying a formal convert to Judaism, would certainly be implied by the LXX uses which describe Israel as being a sojourning or a so-called “proselyte” nation in Egypt (Exodus 22:20[21]; 23:9; Leviticus 19:34; Deuteronomy 10:9).

Moving ahead to the broad First Century B.C.E.-C.E. period, what would it have actually meant for a Greek or Roman person to become a Jewish proselyte? Is the proselytization procedure actually outlined in the Pentateuch, or derived from it? Is it something that was intended all the way back at Mount Sinai, or is it the reflection of later generations of Jews, wishing to closely preserve their ethnicity and protect their people from outside assimilation?

There is no agreement as to when real “proselytes” started emerging on the scene within Second Temple Judaism. The range of opinions one may encounter express views that a procedure for becoming a proselyte goes back to not just figures like the Moabitess Ruth, but as indicated by the Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, “Many of the sages...favored accepting converts into the community, describing Abraham as the first Jew to seek converts and teaching that all Jews should follow his lead by attempting to win over Gentiles to the worship of YHWH.”[126] Yet in this entry’s estimation, “The Bible [meaning, the Tanach] does not have a concept of conversion. The idea arose around the first century C.E.”[127] The references that Scot McKnight provides on favorable attitudes toward proselytes, in his entry for the Dictionary of New Testament Background, all come from the broad First Century B.C.E.-C.E. and the time immediately after.[128] He also indicates how “The evidence from antiquity reveals a rather diverse set of requirements that differ from time and place so that it is no longer accurate to speak of Judaism requiring circumcision, baptism [or, immersion] and a sacrifice in the temple.”[129] His thought is, “all Jews would have expected repentance, obedience and social integration into the Jewish community if one wanted to become a proselyte,”[130] but the degrees of how fast or slow this took place are varied.

The main summary of what was required for ancient proselytes to Judaism is actually seen in the Talmud:

“Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only with circumcision and immersion and sprinkling of blood through the sacrifices, so they will enter the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood on the altar” (b.Keritot 9a).[131]

It is very true that each one of these elements is seen in the Torah, so it was not unreasonable for the ancient Sages to place them together as the main components of what would constitute proselytization. (Those in the Diaspora would make some kind of monetary offering in place of a sacrifice.) But again, when did these procedures really take on significance and force? Not in the Exodus. The discussions about proselytes to ancient Judaism largely occurred contemporary to the ministry of Yeshua.

Of all of the elements listed, circumcision of males would have been the most important, and history certainly bears out the close association between circumcision and Jewish proselytes (especially given the tenor of Paul’s letter to the Galatians). Most critically not to be overlooked would be how circumcision was made illegal on threat of death during the Maccabean crisis of the Second Century B.C.E. (1 Maccabees 1:60-61; 2 Maccabees 6:10). The Pentateuch itself specifically requires circumcision of the ger to eat the Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12:48-49), which in turn results in “native of the land” status being afforded. The Pentateuch defines a people whose God has delivered them via the Exodus and His judgments on Egypt. After the Maccabean crisis of the Second Century B.C.E., though, something like circumcision took on a significantly nationalistic interest for the Jewish people—and was a bit over-extended at that—something although entirely understandable as many had fought and died for it.[132]

While outsiders had always been allowed into the community of either Ancient Israel or Second Temple Judaism, the fallout of the Maccabean crisis really would have forced the issue of how it was to formally take place, especially as the Jewish people would have been most concerned with maintaining their ethnic cohesion and resisting much of the surrounding Hellenism and Romanism. Quickly, being “circumcised” was synonymous with “being Jewish.” Its significance became much inflated, beyond that of either being the memorial sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:10) or a useful procedure for good health. In McKnight’s estimation, “Circumcision as a conversion ritual becomes confused with how Jews perceived the nation: the act and national identity are not easy to separate.”[133] He makes a reference from Josephus to a Roman general named Metilius caught in battle, “for when he entreated for mercy, and promised that he would turn Jew, and be circumcised, they saved him alive” (Wars of the Jews 17.454).[134]

What were the social ramifications of becoming a Jewish proselyte in the Second Temple era? Some of them were quite good, because Yeshua’s word to Nicodemus “unless one is born again” (John 3:3) is appropriated directly from how a proselyte who had turned his back on paganism was thought to be like a newborn baby (b.Yevamot 48b)—now something true of the Messiah’s followers. At the same time, it was not always easy for those of the period who wanted to proselytize to do so.

Josephus records a scene of a King Izates, ruler of Adiabene, who was converted to Judaism via the teaching of the Jewish merchant Ananias. Izates had first seen how his mother eagerly embraced Judaism, and then he followed. He stopped short, though, of undergoing circumcision, as if his subjects heard of it, Izates’ life might be in danger. The record indicates that Ananias agreed on how undergoing circumcision would be life-threatening, and how God would forgive him for this oversight (Antiquities of the Jews 20.38-42).

We should never think that all Jews of the First Century C.E. had a rigid view of circumcision, actually placing circumcision status ahead of belief in God. McKnight concurs, “there were dissenting voices at different times for special reasons.”[135] For a season between the Maccabean crisis and the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah, we should recognize that the making of many Greek and Roman proselytes was a good thing, especially given some of the criticism levied against them by their own people (i.e., Tacitus The Histories 5.5; Juvenal Satires 14.95-104). Yet at the same time, how much paranoia and xenophobia was present within the Jewish world, at least in the Land of Israel, given the presence of: the Roman occupation, the Essenes secluded off to themselves readying for the final battle, various Zealot groups and uprisings, and the two major schools of Pharisees? Given how the Maccabean crisis had promoted Hellenistic integration and assimilation, to what degree would Greek and Roman proselytes to the Synagogue be truly welcomed into the Jewish community and not treated with some suspicion? Philo’s observation was that it took three generations for proselytes to really become Jews (On the Virtues 108), and we are probably all familiar with the classic example of Shammai who refuses to teach a non-Jew the Torah on one foot, versus Hillel who taught him to do no harm to neighbor (b.Shabbat 31a).

In the First Century world of Yeshua and the Apostles, we are probably safe to think how the proselyte procedure, in various degrees, was quite rigorous involving much more than the specified circumcision, immersion, and sacrifice. Some significant education and some social scrutiny by the Jewish community the proselyte would enter into, came along with the package. So why did the Apostles frequently oppose new, non-Jewish Believers becoming proselytes? Surely, it would not have been over simply being circumcised, immersed in water, and then at least giving alms. These are all features of the Torah, even if the formula together is not specified.

The main reason we see circumcision of the new, non-Jewish Believers often opposed in the Apostolic Scriptures has nothing to do with it being a Torah-prescribed practice, or even a medical procedure. Those Greeks and Romans who were already proselytes to Judaism before hearing about Yeshua and the gospel (cf. Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43), and genuinely became Believers, were accepted as-is. This was done on a circumstantial basis, though. The main reason that circumcision of any more non-Jewish Believers was opposed was because of the sociological factors surrounding it.[136] There were precedents in post-Maccabean Jewish history, for example, of forced conversions. McKnight summarizes how “Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus each forced Gentiles to convert and be circumcised, even if they saw such as part of an eschatological program or political purgation.”[137]

Forcing or ordering any Believers to do things ran entirely contrary to Yeshua’s teaching, “when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth...” (John 16:13). The common focus of identity for Messiah followers was to be His sacrificial work, and the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit He promised to send, to then guide individuals’ lives. All obedience to the Lord and His commandments comes via the compulsion of His presence inside of human vessels (discussed further), not demanding mortals. This was not what a group of hyper-conservative Pharisees advocated: “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order[138] them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5, ESV).

We see an opposition to proselyte circumcision, which is against the will of the Spirit (cf. Acts 15:8)—not because of circumcision as an operation—but because it would give quarter to, or would help feed, the widespread and errant idea in much of Second Temple Judaism that Jewish ethnicity guaranteed one eternal redemption. The Mishnah includes the sentiment, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come...” (m.Sanhedrin 10:1),[139] and in order to be a true “Israelite” in this sense, an outsider had to be circumcised as a proselyte. But the way true inclusion within God’s people has always been assured has been via faithful trust in Him (Genesis 15:6; Galatians 3:6)! Faith in Israel’s Messiah reckoned the non-Jewish Believers a part of the community of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6), and was to be the common denominator of unity and cohesion.

The Apostles would also have nothing to do with the common occurrence of a Jewish proselyte having to pray “God of your fathers” (m.Bikkurim 1:4)[140] in a public service. Paul strongly asserted in 1 Corinthians 10:1, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all[141] under the cloud and all passed through the sea.” This was written to a mixed Corinthian assembly of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, who were to equally view the heritage of God’s Torah as their own. This is especially true in recognizing that what occurred to Ancient Israel in the wilderness was “written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Corinthians 10:11). In the thought of Richard B. Hays, at least, “the story of Israel is for the Gentile Corinthians not somebody else’s story; it is the story of their own authentic spiritual ancestors.”[142] All Messiah followers are to use the discernment granted to them by God’s Spirit to know how to properly approach and apply the messages of His Torah.

Paul’s thrust in his letters was largely the reconciliation of all human beings “in one body to God through the cross” (Ephesians 2:16), and not a group of Jews and proselytes on one side, and everyone else on another. But while he is negative toward non-Jewish Believers becoming proselytes, Yeshua the Messiah Himself is even more so in His evaluation of what the First Century proselyte-making process had largely become in His day. Among His direct words to the Pharisaical leaders, included, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matthew 23:15). The Lord actually did say that many proselytes were “twice as fit for Gei-Hinnom as you are!” (CJB).

We should not forget how there were many intramural debates among the different sects of Pharisees within Second Temple Judaism, which often used very stern and tough language, which would not be found in much “vigorous debate” today. What we see in Matthew 23:15 is really, really bad, though. It cannot be disputed that huion geennēs or ben-geihinnom (Salkinson-Ginsburg) is something most severe—being associated with the place of final damnation. Being a “child of hell” (NRSV/ESV) really is a much worse designation than just being, as we might encounter in more modern speech, a “son of a bitch” (as insulting as that is). It is a testament to how much of the proselyte-making process had gone sour and putrid. The observation of Craig S. Keener is, “Presumably by exposing converts to the truth of God’s standards while allowing hypocrisy through their own bad example (23:3, 13), these Pharisees were leading their own converts to be doubly damned.”[143]

Yeshua the Messiah’s entry onto the scene was not only to restore Israel and see His salvation go to the nations, but to establish something which “the gates of Hades” (Matthew 16:18) would not be able to overpower. 1 John 3:8 asserts, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” Most significantly, “Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13), as the Torah’s penalties cannot condemn the redeemed in Him to damnation. A verbal negation of these great things might be one of the major reasons why Paul opposed proselyte circumcision in his insistence, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Galatians 5:3). He did not want panti anthrōpō or “every human being” who underwent ritual proselyte circumcision,[144] to be “a debtor to do the whole law” (KJV).

Galatians 5:3 definitely has important sociological and spiritual implications to it. First of all, would the new proselyte—a Greek or Roman by all accounts—really be welcome in the Jewish community? Or, because of all of the injustices committed against the Jews by the proselyte’s own people, would some kind of “payback” via his or her newfound Torah observance be expected to the Jewish community, the new proselyte becoming an opheiletēs or “one who owes another, a debtor” (Thayer)?[145] This is hardly the sentiment of Psalm 40:8: “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.” Secondly, “a debtor to do the whole law” (KJV) likely has a connection to the proselyte ritual in view. A commentator like Hans Dieter Betz suggests, “The formula of oath seems to be in place”[146] here. Ben Witherington III further remarks, “There may…be much more beneath the surface as well. A close examination of Ancient Near East covenanting procedures, including those followed by the Israelites, shows that the sign of a covenant was often connected with oath curses that went with the covenant.”[147]

The Qumran community required its members “to return to the Law of Moses” via “a binding oath” (1QS 5.9),[148] no doubt followed by some close (and perhaps even unfair) scrutiny of one’s personal and private affairs.

One can easily envision ancient Jewish groups or sects requiring proselytes to make a vow to keep the whole Torah (including any additional rules required by them),[149] a precedent that had been set by the returned exiles in Nehemiah 10:29. If the new, non-Jewish Believers became proselytes and had to swear strongly to incur great penalties or curses or being cut off from the elect, if they ever broke the Law, what would this mean in light of the Messiah having died for them—and how He had nullified the Torah’s curse over those who placed their trust in Him (Galatians 3:13; cf. Colossians 2:14)? Not only would the new proselyte likely be found leading a life utterly dominated by trying to please a suspicious Jewish community, but he or she would ultimately be found looking to his or her meticulous Torah-keeping for salvation, which given human nature would be a Torah inevitably broken in various areas, seemingly incurring a curse that the Messiah nullified for those in Him.[150] We can understand Paul’s concern for the Galatians tempted to do this, then: “You have been severed from Messiah, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4). In Galatians, at least, those who went through ritual proselyte circumcision were found to be considering the Messiah’s offering up of Himself as not being that valuable, or having done that much in reckoning them a part of God’s people.[151]

Quite contrary to this, the focus of the early Believers’ Torah-keeping was to be the word, “Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Messiah” (Galatians 6:2). Emulating the Messiah who upheld Moses’ Teaching (Matthew 5:16-18) was to be the prime emphasis now. The Acts 15 Jerusalem Council ruled against the new, non-Jewish Believers being ordered to be circumcised as proselytes and keep the Torah for salvation (Acts 15:1), because “the words of the Prophets” (Acts 15:15) were strictly in play—and the Prophets anticipated not only the New Covenant cleansing people of their sins and supernaturally transcribing and directing people to follow the Law (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 36:25-27), but also that the nations would come to Zion to hear and embrace it (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4). One should be able to easily understand the significance that water immersion held for the early Believers, as identification of entry into God’s community: “For all of you who were baptized into Messiah have clothed yourselves with Messiah” (Galatians 3:27). This was a way to physically identify with how the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua has secured a Believer’s salvation (Romans 6:3-4),[152] in addition to the fact that it was something that those of both genders could perform (cf. Galatians 3:28).

Becoming a Jewish proselyte, as beneficial as it had probably been for previous persons, was not necessary in the First Century Messianic community. Being instructed from God’s Torah would indeed be important, but it would be done with the Messiah’s teachings and example in mind, which would guide the way via the Spirit. Non-Jewish Believers the world over since (including the theological background and traditions found in my own family), have always looked to being guided by the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses in an effort to follow our Lord and Savior. With the arrival of today’s Messianic movement, this is being accomplished with much more of a targeted focus in mind, and with many of us eagerly awaiting the full restoration of Israel and God’s Kingdom.

God-Fearers, Sojourners, and Strangers—Today?

The discussions and debates, as can be expected, continue. Unfortunately for many people who make up today’s broad Messianic movement, the distinctions which exist among God’s people are more important to be emphasized than the common traits that bind them together, and how we can all uniquely contribute to the well being of the Body of Messiah. Comments are ongoing about the specific category that non-Jewish Believers “really fall into.” There are various Messianic Jews who are most welcoming of non-Jewish Believers into their congregations, and of them adopting things like the Sabbath or kosher eating, thinking that they best fall into the category of the ancient God-fearer, which was a group of people frequently present within Diaspora synagogues of the Second Temple era. These were largely people who had not become proselytes, but did voluntarily follow a Jewish style of life as Greeks and Romans. One advocate of non-Jewish Believers in Messianic Judaism being like “God-fearers” is Patrice Fischer, who draws the conclusion,

“[T]hese Godfearers were every bit as Jewishly observant as their Jewish friends...They...probably were more deeply devoted to Judaism than many native-born Jews....Gentiles who maintain Torah practices like biblical Godfearing Gentiles can be welcomed into full membership and leadership within Messianic congregations today.”[153]

The principal evidence one should consider in terms of the God-fearer is seen in the Book of Acts. Those who are often classified as being God-fearers include: the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:2, 22), a sub-group of the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16, 26), a group of proselytes in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:43), a group of devout women in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:50), a group of Greeks in Philippi (Acts 17:4), a sub-group of the synagogue at Athens (Acts 17:17), and Titius Justus in Corinth (Acts 18:7). The thought of McKnight is, “the term Godfearer is used of Gentiles who honor God in various ways (including almsgiving and synagogue participation) who are distinguished from run-of-the-mill Gentiles,” further adding how at times, “the term seems to be nearly synonymous with ‘proselyte’ or a category of proselytes.”[154] However, a usage of terms to describe a group of people in an historical context does not necessarily imply an Apostolic endorsement of the institution. T.R. Schreiner indicates how “The precise status of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is...disputed,”[155] requiring Bible readers to take a look at how vocabulary describing non-Jewish non-proselytes is actually used.

The main noun employed to designate an ancient God-fearer was theosebēs,[156] actually appearing in a Third Century C.E. Jewish register.[157] TDNT explains how theosebēs and its related adjective theosebeia[158] are used “only once each” in the Apostolic Scriptures, in how “The adjective occurs in Jn. 9:31: God hears those who fear him, which is defined as doing his will...The noun comes in 1 Tim. 2:10, which teaches that women professing religion...should substantiate their confession with good deeds.”[159] These are not the terms used in Acts, and they are used for Jews as well.

What is instead employed in Luke’s record in Acts are two verbs, each of which details the concept of “fearing God.” These include phobeō, the relatively common verb for “fear,”[160] and sebō, “to worship, be religious” (LS).[161] Does this actually make any difference? Schreiner does note, “It is generally agreed that Luke used” these two verbs to describe God-fearers, but he goes on to conclude, seeing how the verbs are used, “When one looks at the use of the terms in Acts it seems unlikely that....[they] are technical terms.”[162] He concludes that ultimately, any term seeming to imply “God-fearer” is more concerned with “one [who] is a pious person. Thus Jews, proselytes, and Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism were all described as ‘pious.’ The meaning of ‘God-fearer’ in any particular passage must be determined from the context.”[163]

It may be true that in different Diaspora synagogues which Paul visited, there was a sub-group of non-Jews which the leadership would consider theosebēs, and they perhaps even enrolled these people as such. But when Paul addressed those in Pisidian Antioch with the word, “Brothers!—sons of Avraham and those among you who are ‘God-fearers’” (Acts 13:26, CJB), is this some kind of an endorsement of the status of God-fearer? Not necessarily. While Paul affirms the Jews present as sons of Abraham, everyone else is hoi phoboumenoi, a participle meaning “those fearing” (“you who fear God,” NASU), the more expected term theosebēs is not used. It would be imprudent of us to think that Paul called non-Jews at this synagogue “God-fearers” (NIV) and thus upheld it as a classification to be enforced, although he did use “fearing” terminology as he was a guest among those in Pisidian Antioch (cf. Acts 13:15), and was most tactful. The requirement to fear God, though, is universal for all of His people, and is not limited to only one sector.[164]

The God-fearer was a category of the Jewish Synagogue, and was certainly how many of the non-Jewish Believers who had been a part of the Synagogue—and then found Messiah Yeshua—would have once been defined. Most New Testament scholars are agreed that Paul had the best success with presenting the gospel to those who were associate God-fearers of the Diaspora Synagogue, who did not have to be circumcised as proselytes in order to be fully welcomed into the people of God. But, the God-fearer only describes those non-Jewish non-proselytes within the Synagogue before coming to Messiah faith, and is not how the Messiah followers at all defined themselves.

Let it not be overlooked that even though many God-fearers in the Mediterranean had found the God of Israel, and were fully dedicated to Him—this was probably not always the case. In Acts 17:4 in Thessalonica, a large number of Jews and “a large number of the God-fearing Greeks[165] and a number of the leading women” were persuaded to believe in Yeshua. What is perplexing, though, is how in the opening greeting of 1 Thessalonians, written after this visit, Paul describes, “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1:9). While it is possible that once a gathering of Messiah followers was established in Thessalonica, people were attracted to it directly from paganism, it is also possible that some of the “God-fearers” associated with the synagogue had not been completely dedicated to the Lord.

An association with a local synagogue for a Greek or Roman did not necessarily mean a total abandonment of paganism. Some “God-fearers” could have only added the worship of Israel’s God to a pantheon of other deities they worshipped, or they were still dabbling in their old religious practices here and there on the side. While many God-fearers were doubtlessly welcome in the Jewish Synagogue, some had not come as far as they should have in recognizing the One God of Israel as the only Deity—perhaps because not being Jews they were not given as much attention and instruction as they could have been.

God-fearers were recognized as existing in the historical record of Acts, but being a “God-fearer” is not a status which is affirmed or employed by the First Century Messianic community. The one, consistent term that is encountered throughout the Apostolic Scriptures as a self-referent of the Believers is adelphoi, which the NRSV and TNIV have largely, and perhaps with more clarity, rendered as “brothers and sisters.” This is the identity that the early Messiah followers were implored to recognize themselves as having. Yet, for some reason or another, today’s Messianic movement does not always emphasize all of those within our faith community as brothers and sisters.

And if “God-fearer” is not a status that was used by the early Messianic community, then it is also appropriate that we recognize that the Torah classification of ger/sojourner has itself undergone some changes as salvation history has progressed forward. While in the Pentateuch, both the native and sojourner were largely held equal before God’s Law, the sojourner was still a person from the outside having entered in, and circumcision was required in order to be reckoned as a native of the land (Exodus 12:48). In the Apostolic era, Paul instructed those in Asia Minor to regard themselves “no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and...of God's household” (Ephesians 2:19), indicating that the internal designation of “alien” was largely for a previous time.[166] Even more important might be the words of Peter, who writes, “To those who reside as aliens...Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul” (1 Peter 1:1; 2:11).

The non-Jewish Believers were not considered some kind of associate member of Israel, perhaps as the ger/sojourner would be in some previous times. If anything, all Believers are aliens and strangers on Planet Earth![167] As Paul says in Philippians 3:20, “our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.” Jewish and non-Jewish Believers sojourning on the Earth, awaiting for King Messiah to return, intensifies the need for all of us today to understand how while there were sojourners present in the community of Ancient Israel—so were figures like Abraham,[168] Lot,[169] Jacob,[170] Joseph and his brothers,[171] Moses,[172] and even Israel itself in Egypt,[173] regarded as sojourners. As the author of Hebrews describes it, “But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:6). Yet as my family must observe, how frequently have today’s Messianic Believers really probed these realities?

Today’s Messianics wrestle most significantly with the idea that the Kingdom of Israel, in the end, is going to be an enlarged, internally diverse, but single people of God. (Even in the eschatological division of the Promised Land after the Second Coming, those labeled as sojourners will be regarded as full natives [Ezekiel 47:22].) The categories of ger/sojourner, proselyte, and God-fearer largely concerned or regulated a previous time in the pre-resurrection era. The main classifications we should be most concerned with now, as Messiah reigns in Heaven and we wait for the completion of all things being subjected to Him (Hebrews 2:8), are: fellow citizen, joint heir, and most importantly brother and sister. Whether we be Jewish or non-Jewish, our membership within the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) is determined by the Lord’s sacrificial work on our behalf, and our striving to not only emulate His obedience, but how our common faith in Him affects our relationship to one another (Mark 3:35; Matthew 12:50).

Polarized Options:

Divine Invitation and Covenant Obligation

What is the current status of the One Law issue within today’s Messianic community? Does the Torah or Law of Moses serve as relevant instruction for all of God’s people, or only some of God’s people?

A question that I have been asked by more than a few people is which option they are to choose: Is the Torah a Divine Invitation to non-Jewish Believers, or is it a Covenant Obligation upon non-Jewish Believers? Is the Torah mandatory for Jews to follow, and an option for non-Jews to follow? Or is the Torah something mandatory for all of God’s people to follow?

When these questions get asked, it is not difficult for one to encounter how there is much emotionalism involved. The reason why the current discussion over the One Law passages has gotten to the point of Torah applicability being split into the (only?) two options of Divine Invitation or Covenant Obligation, is because the discussion has been largely controlled by polarizing voices and people whose concern is to primarily look out for their own ministerial or organizational or cliquish interests, and not always the spiritual well-being of individuals and families. They are to blame for causing: the confusion over who is Jewish and who is not Jewish, over-emphasizing or under-emphasizing the role of the Jewish tradition in our halachic orthopraxy, and ultimately for misevaluating the trajectory of the Holy Scriptures and the progression of salvation history.

Neither side really knows what a mixed Messianic assembly should or could look like, as we seek to fairly sort that which is Biblical or traditional or cultural in the process of Torah observance, giving them their proper due[174]—much less how Messianic communities of Believers can make a concentrated difference in today’s world, at the very least in more effectively seeing Jewish people brought to faith and Christians exposed to their Hebraic Roots. The two sides have not always helped the reputation that the Messianic movement has in the greater religious world, and at times have demonstrated a rather under-whelming Biblical Studies on some issues. I think they have both “dropped the ball,” in their own ways, with the mission God expects His people to achieve, in being beacons of His love and goodness to others.

Allow me to explain why I choose not to choose between the polarized options of either Divine Invitation or Covenant Obligation.

Divine Invitation

The problem with a position and ideology of Divine Invitation, regarding the Torah for Believers today, is that in proposing that the Jewish people (whether Believers in Yeshua or not) are mandated to follow Moses’ Teaching, and non-Jewish Believers are “invited” to follow it, is that it forges unnecessary and unneeded divisions among God’s people. It is widely predicated on a complimentarian basis of inequality within the ekklēsia decisively spoken against in the Apostolic Scriptures for the post-resurrection era (cf. Galatians 3:28 subverting t.Berachot 6:18),[175] with not everyone standing at the same standard level before His justice. It makes distinctions among God’s people more important than the common faith we possess in Messiah Yeshua, and how all redeemed people—especially Jewish Believers—should be principally following the Torah emulating Him. It cannot really consider how non-Jewish Believers within the Messianic movement can contribute to our faith community with positive virtues from their own backgrounds, and how a Jewish perspective on various issues may not always be the best one or might need to be triangulated against other views,[176] as Judaism is often placed on a pedestal a little higher than everything else. It also has embedded within it a possible or even probable dynamic of Messianic Jews judging other Messianic Jews’ Torah observance, especially on the part of those who follow an Orthodox-level of halachah, versus those who do not.

And what does this mean for the Jewish person, who does not know Yeshua and has fully rejected Him, but is still regarded as being mandated to keep the Torah? Will such a mandated Torah-keeping merit salvation (cf. Philippians 3:7-8)? The Jerusalem Council recognized that all people are saved by the same Messiah (Acts 15:9), and that no amount of Torah-keeping on anyone’s part will curry God’s favor. Is keeping the Torah to be the special mark of identity for the Jewish person? According to Paul in Romans 2:29, the true Jewish person in the end is one who can receive great praise and accolades from God, and not mortals.[177] Obedience to Him plays a role in such honor, but more so would be how His character and goodness are to be represented to the world in someone’s attitude. It may be true that Jewish Believers, who know without any doubt that their ancestors were at Mount Sinai, may be more naturally inclined to follow the Torah, and probably face fewer difficulties to overcome than others in being instructed by it—but that does not mean that others are not similarly expected to heed it.

Most importantly, though, if there is anything seriously being overlooked about the unique distinctiveness of the Jewish people, it is that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), with Yeshua the Messiah Himself being the quintessential Jew. This is far more significant than Torah-keeping being what apparently makes the Jewish people distinct. The Jewish source, of every human being’s salvation (Romans 9:5), possesses a special and honored distinctiveness, that will inevitably be recognized by Believers—especially non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement! Non-Jewish Believers who have benefited from such salvation, should be conduits of the Lord’s grace and mercy to Jewish people who have not yet recognized Messiah (Romans 11:31).

I will admit that I do, to an extent, appreciate the terminology “Divine Invitation,” because our family ministry has always advocated that the best way to expose evangelical Christians to things like Shabbat or the festivals is to invite them to your home or congregation—and witness the blessings firsthand. The tenor of a passage like Deuteronomy 31:12, when the Torah was to be decisively read to an enlarged community of Israel at Sukkot—“Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law”—does include the requirement for all to be instructed from and keep Moses’ Teaching. This may, to an extent, be considered an invitation—but it was not an invitation where one within the community of Ancient Israel, including a sojourner, really had the option of turning it down. For the ancient sojourner firmly a part of the assembly, it is to be regarded more as a non-voluntary impetus to learn and do more.

For Messianic Believers today, our family has always emphasized the need to love people into this—rather than issue condemning and mean-spirited words. Much of the “pagan” rhetoric that one sees in fringe parts of the Messianic world has significantly impeded progress for the Kingdom of God, and is a major blight that is not spoken against enough. Yet at the same time, if Divine Invitation presents Shabbat, the appointed times, or kosher eating as entirely optional, what is keeping someone from turning them down? Is it really a blessing to be keeping these things in Messianic Jewish congregations where a non-Jew in many cases is not wanted and/or one’s differences are rigidly emphasized? Who wants to be in an unstable, independent Messianic fellowship where there are frequent debates over doctrinal essentials, and/or where there is often no discipline when a leader (significantly) errs? Indeed, given the diversity of today’s broad Messianic movement—and never knowing quite what to find—some evangelical Believers will indeed turn down an “invitation” to become a part of this. Would it just be better to stay in Church, recognizing that God is saving the Jewish people through the Messianic community, but remain largely ignorant of how it is actually occurring?

Covenant Obligation

The position of Covenant Obligation is what is largely advocated by proponents who label themselves as being either One Law or One Torah. While I do agree that “one law” or “one statute” applies to all within the community of Israel, and that non-Jewish Believers are an equal part of an enlarged Kingdom of Israel with Jewish Believers, the language and praxis of obligation can be quite problematic at times. If Believers are “obligated” to “keep Torah,” then this can quite easily lead to a few people thinking that their Torah-keeping will earn them their salvation, and can manifest itself in rather rigid and legalistic assemblies forming. The center of a person’s life and deeds becomes “Torah,” rather than the Messiah who had to be sacrificed precisely because of human violation of the Torah (Galatians 3:13). Even if Yeshua is referred to as the “Living Torah,” how often is this actually used in reference to the Messiah’s ministry and teachings, and getting people to really consider the imperative of the good news in being saved from eternal punishment? Born again Believers are not required to keep God’s Torah as though it were some kind of debt or obligation (cf. Galatians 5:3); on the contrary, we are told, “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).

I cannot hide the fact that I have had a number of altercations over the years with some individuals who label themselves as “One Law.” Various persons in the One Law sub-movement do not tend to be that eager in lauding the Christian Church for its positive contributions to global society, in particular those theological traditions (such as my family’s own Wesleyan and Reformed roots) which have always looked to the Mosaic Law for ethical and moral guidelines to be followed by all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, and who would never argue that the Law in its totality has been “abolished.” I have constantly asked various individuals who are “One Law” why they criticize elements of today’s Church who follow well over ninety-percent of the Torah that can be followed today, and why they treat our Christian brothers and sisters as some kind of perpetual “enemy.” Why can we not focus on our common faith in the Messiah, what we all agree on regarding the Law, and then constructively work through those areas where we might not currently agree?

I agree with One Law proponents that all of God’s people should be instructed by Moses’ Teaching, and that it is relevant for all of us. Yet, I have found in my interactions that in focusing so much on the Torah, who Yeshua is and what He came to do for sinners can sometimes be an afterthought. Not only have I seen various One Law proponents not temper themselves, tone down their rhetoric, and carefully watch what they say around Christians—they often completely miss that there have been some significant changes enacted by Yeshua’s sacrificial work. They expel considerable energies berating people who might have to work on the Sabbath once in a while, or who could get served unclean things when visiting friends or extended family. There is frequently no grace or understanding for someone’s circumstances and for exceptions to the rule. There are even quasi-Sadducees out there, for whom the only important Scripture is the Pentateuch, and the rest of the Bible is not often consulted.

Even though there are One Law people who will say that faith in Yeshua is the most important thing to them, it is clear when witnessing their lives that their relationship might be with the Law, and not the Lawgiver. It is sometimes a little difficult to talk to them about Yeshua’s prophetic fulfillment of the Torah (Matthew 3:15; 5:17-19), and how a life of faith is to go beyond the Torah (cf. Galatians 3:12a; Hebrews 11:1-2), being based in a relationship with the Father via His Son. There is a tendency to force the letter of the Law, and focus very little on the presence of the Holy Spirit (Romans 7:6), which is to compel us to obey (Romans 8:4). Most disturbing is when Colossians 2:14 is mentioned, and the Lord absorbing the Torah’s death penalty and condemnation onto Himself is not acknowledged, as though sinners still need to be stoned today. The mutual submission ideology (Ephesians 5:21; cf. Philippians 2:2-3), promoted by Outreach Israel and TNN Online, is currently not compatible with the thoughts of many One Law advocates.

Sanctifying Grace:

A Supernatural Compulsion to Obey God More and More

Is it really appropriate to force non-Jewish Believers in today’s Messianic movement to choose between something that can be easily turned down (Divine Invitation), or a life where Torah-keeping could easily become a forced work of the flesh and people try to earn their salvation (Covenant Obligation)? Why does it seem that a third, more reasonable and more edifying solution, seems to elude some leaders and teachers?

Is it possible to find a third option for today’s Messianic Believers in regard to the Torah, between the extremes of Divine Invitation and Covenant Obligation? There is indeed. Divine Invitation ends up with non-Jewish Believers really not being the equals of Jewish Believers, in a post-resurrection, definitively egalitarian era. Covenant Obligation runs the risk of causing Messianic people to be more concerned about their Torah-keeping, than the substance of the Messiah and what He has done for us. Divine Invitation advocates that Jewish people are mandated to follow the Torah, and Covenant Obligation advocates that all are mandated to follow the Torah.

It is inappropriate for any of us to advocate that the Torah is “mandated” upon any of God’s people, Jewish or not—because mandating, dictating, obligating, impressing, or ordering (or even inflicting) the commandments onto someone is not consistent with the ethos of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:8-12). We live in a post-resurrection era where obedience to the Lord is undeniably to be guided by His people having received His forgiveness via the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice (Luke 22:20), and where the activity of the Holy Spirit inside a regenerated human heart compels people to heed and obey the Scriptures. Between the two options of Divine Invitation and Covenant Obligation, we need to recognize how salvation history has progressed forward, and we live in a time which is to be definitively dominated by the work of the Spirit in the lives of all Messiah followers.

In formulating a viable third option for today’s Messianics to consider, I have found that my own Wesleyan upbringing might offer us the best theological framework to consider. Within Wesleyan theology, one will find the terminology “sanctifying grace” frequently employed, to describe a born again Believer’s life following the moment of salvation (which itself is often called “justifying grace”), as the Holy Spirit moves on the hearts of God’s people throughout their lifetime, continually molding them to be more and more like Jesus in the way that they love others and obey Him. Addressing Romans 3:31[178] in his sermon “The Law Established by Faith,” John Wesley probably gives many of today’s Messianic Believers some useful direction on how to approach the Torah:

“Let us thus endeavour to establish the law in ourselves; not sinning, ‘because we are under grace,’ but rather using all the power we receive thereby, ‘to fulfil all righteousness.’ Calling to mind what light we received from God while his Spirit was convincing us of sin, let us beware we do not put out that light; what we had then attained let us hold fast. Let nothing induce us to build again what we have destroyed; to resume any thing, small or great, which we then clearly saw was not for the glory of God, or the profit of our own soul; or to neglect any thing, small or great, which we could not then neglect, without a check from our own conscience. To increase and perfect the light which we had before, let us now add the light of faith. Confirm we the former gift of God, by a deeper sense of whatever he had then shown us; by a greater tendency of conscience, and a more exquisite sensibility of sin. Walking now with joy, and not with fear, in a clear, steady sight of things eternal, we shall look on with pleasure, wealth, praise, all things of earth, as on bubbles upon the water; counting nothing important, nothing desirable, nothing worth a deliberate thought, but only what is ‘within the veil,’ where Jesus ‘sitteth at the right hand of God.’”

Men and women, who are guided by God’s grace and mercy to no longer commit sin and violate His Law, have placed at the very center of their being Yeshua the Messiah exalted and reigning as King. They recognize that salvation is by grace, but that actions reflective of such salvation are to be required (Ephesians 2:8-10). In establishing or upholding the Law of God in their lives, they desire to accomplish the good works that He requires of us, particularly actions of kindness and mercy (James 1:27). Obeying the Lord is neither an optional invitation nor a mandated obligation, it is a supernatural compulsion enacted by the perfecting activity of the Holy Spirit on the human soul. The more we obey the Lord and submit ourselves to His will, the more we are able to experience His presence and communion in our hearts, being conformed to the image of Yeshua (Romans 8:29), and become repelled by not only the presence of sin, but even the mention of it (cf. Ephesians 5:3). The desire to obey is innately connected with the desire to know the Lord more and more intimately.

A position of Supernatural Compulsion, for all of God’s people today following the Torah, can help us avoid the pitfalls of either thinking that obedience is not really expected of us, or that the Law is going to be forced down upon us as some heavy anvil to drag around. A position of Supernatural Compulsion, emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit, is undoubtedly impelled by a motive of love for God and neighbor, the most important of the Torah’s commandments.[180]

A position of Supernatural Compulsion does advocate that a Torah obedient walk of faith is expected of all of God’s people, but it is to be found as an individual grows in holiness and spiritual maturity, and is not to be legalistically imposed by outside forces. The speed that one heeds the message of some commandments might be faster for some and slower for others. Nevertheless, if there are Messianic congregations and assemblies which are full of loving people who recognize the centrality of Yeshua to our faith, they will facilitate an environment where a steady Torah obedience is manifested. It will not be the job of individuals to “play the role of the Holy Spirit” as it were, but rather be there to patiently and lovingly, mentor and guide newer people—be they evangelical Christians embracing their Hebraic Roots or Messianic Jews rediscovering their Jewish heritage—to become everything they can be in the Lord. No one in the Messianic movement should ever allow themselves to be denigrated over how much or how little of the Torah they are able to follow, yet at the same time we should all take a helping interest in those who appear to remain perpetual spiritual plebeians, and are struggling disciples.

One of the understandable questions, that might be raised about a Supernatural Compulsion position for keeping the Torah, is that if the New Covenant promise is to not only cleanse people from sin, but also Divinely transcribe the Torah onto hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:8-12)[181]—then what do we do about the millions of Christians in the world who claim to know Jesus but do not expel a huge effort to keep the Law? Are they not filled with the Holy Spirit?

God as the Eternal Creator is the ultimate Judge of any human being, and only He knows for certain whether Christians or Jews really have a heart for obeying Him. Only He knows for sure that before they die, if they have truly cried out to Him, and whether or not they have really made their peace with Him. Furthermore, as Paul attests in Romans 5:20, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” God’s grace will always superabound, and is able to overcome the power or influence of sin. Many Christians today are genuinely saved people, but are often just uninformed or under-informed as to what the Torah teaches. Many of them keep a considerable bulk of the Law, and do not even realize it. Yet, in those areas where they are not in obedience—most of which are relatively minor—if they truly know the Lord Yeshua, His shed blood and permanent atonement covers their transgressions.

Does a ministry like Outreach Israel and TNN Online think that the Torah is for everyone? Yes. Does this include things like Shabbat, the appointed times, and kosher? Yes. But such an affirmative also needs to be tempered with another question: Are these aspects of God’s Torah for everyone right now in the 2010s? This is something that only God, in His plans for an individual’s or a family’s life, especially evangelical Christians, knows for sure—and I cannot fully answer.

With many of the currents and eddies present in today’s broad Messianic community, and various congregations and alliances defining themselves on the basis of who-is and who-is-not allowed in—I do not think that the second decade of the Twenty-First Century is probably the season for multitudes in the world to be embracing a Messianic, Torah obedient walk. There is still a huge amount of work to be done, to prime our faith community, so that its future leaders, teachers, and people can be prepared not only for the restoration of God’s Kingdom that is prophesied, but also so they can be braced for the prophesied apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and the significant challenges that all people of faith will face in the end-times. We do need to work hard and expel the required effort for more establishment, stability, and professionalism. We do need to see some changes take place in the current, overall Messianic religious culture.

Our ministry has never advocated that today’s evangelical Christianity is some kind of illegitimate imposter religion, more in touch with accomplishing the objectives of the Adversary than in achieving the mission of God. We have advocated that the Church has flaws to be certain, but that it is the responsibility of Messianic Believers to build on the positive legacy of faithful Christian men and women who have preceded us in the faith, every bit as much as it is our duty to build on the positive legacy of Judaism. My own personal family background in both Methodism and Presbyterianism is full of significant examples of men and women who followed, to the best of their knowledge and understanding, the Mosaic Law, and were hard workers who made a difference in their generations. They certainly believed in the importance of the Ten Commandments for Christian living. I am easily reminded of my great-great grandfather or my great-grandmother, who once they “found religion,” were rather rigid “Sunday Sabbath” keepers—and who were probably more serious about the Fourth Commandment than many of today’s Messianics![182] I believe myself to be continuing what they have left me with, because what their lives and legacy have imparted down to me is not at all “meaningless.” They were certainly not “lawless” people!

It was not that difficult for a family like mine—who never believed that the Law was “abolished” by Christ—to be convicted by the Holy Spirit that we needed to consider a Messianic walk of faith, and that we needed to consider how we could more fully live like Jesus. Via a series of unique life circumstances, we were supernaturally compelled to do this, and we know it is God’s intention for us to faithfully serve the Messianic community in teaching Yeshua-centered discipleship.[183] Many of you reading this, who are non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement, have a similar testimony of embracing a Messianic lifestyle. Some of you who are Jewish Believers may even have a special testimony of how you discovered the Messiah, and how you personally know that something unique and different is going on in the Messianic world.

“One Law for All”

Within the Pentateuch, it is affirmed that the same law or series of statutes applies to all of those who make up the community of Israel—principles which have had an undeniable impact on Western, and in particular, American jurisprudence. In Messiah Yeshua, the faith of non-Jewish Believers has reckoned them a part of the polity of Israel, the same as any Jewish Believer—which makes the Torah relevant for those who knew for certain that their ancestors were at Mount Sinai, as well as many others who have acknowledged the God of Israel as Creator. Today’s Messianic movement has been most helpful in exposing many people to the continued validity of the Torah, as Messianic Jews have sought to express their heritage as followers of Yeshua, and evangelical Christians have embraced their Hebraic Roots and acknowledged their heritage in Judaism. While there have been challenges along the way, and there are still insecurities and uncertainties to be overcome in some hearts—it is largely acknowledged that something is stirring the hearts of those who seek after the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Problems with the Torah being something relevant for all of God’s people, commonly known by the designation “One Law” or “One Torah,” have principally erupted not by non-Jewish Believers studying the weekly Torah portions or reading the Old Testament more frequently, or even keeping a Sabbath rest. Problems have erupted when a rigid, legalistic attitude is allowed to fester, and bad attitudes are not challenged and confronted. Unless the Torah is held before Messianic Believers as a means by which we can all live holy and upstanding lives before the Lord, emulating Yeshua, and desiring to increase in our ability to demonstrate His love and mercy to others—then what will be achieved? It is unavoidable that some of the Torah passages that use the terminology “one law” or “one statute” involve the inaction of capital punishment for Ancient Israel (i.e., Leviticus 24:22), but these are penalties the Messiah took upon Himself at Golgotha (Calvary). Other references deal with animal sacrifices (i.e., Numbers 15:15-16). It is probably not very prudent to center the ethos of an entire sub-movement of the Messianic community around these kinds of verses, as much as they may rightly support the theological and philosophical premise that the same overall instruction affects a mixed people of God.

If we are to give the Torah its proper place in our Messianic faith practice, then it is most advisable that we instead focus our attention around edifying Biblical promises like that of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; cf. Hebrews 8:8-12), where the Lord will not only cleanse the sins of His people, but supernaturally transcribe His Law onto their hearts. It is prophesied that in the Last Days the nations will come to Zion to be instructed from the Torah (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4), something which makes the Law most relevant to be heeded by non-Jewish Believers. Couple this with an emphasis on God’s grace superabounding (Romans 5:20), and I believe that our approach to the Torah will not only be more healthy—but we will be forced to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit as key. This in turn will make Torah observant people really consider the love and mercy of God at work in their hearts (cf. Ephesians 2:4-5), and they will be less prone to judge others, who at present do not live the same way that they do. They will be more consciously aware of the need for their obedience to reflect God’s goodness and blessing (Deuteronomy 4:6-7).

Our primary emphasis as born again Believers should not really be “One Law,” or any of the other possible theological designations we could give to ourselves—but should instead be focused in what Messiah Yeshua has accomplished for us all, in being sacrificed for our sins and resurrected from the dead. Too much of the debate, witnessed over the One Law topic, has downplayed who the Messiah is to us as those saved by His grace. A person might wonder what would happen were the Lord to physically appear in the room, as various conversations about this issue occur. Would He really appreciate the degrees of contention and strife which are manifested? Would He really appreciate some of the insults?

We are to be a single, albeit internally diverse, people of God who compose the Commonwealth of Israel. We are to highly value the Torah or Law of Moses, which is to clearly point us to our need for a Redeemer—precisely because in our human strength we cannot perfectly keep its instructions. Messiah followers are to keep the Torah principally because our Lord bids us to have good works (Matthew 5:16), and to make a difference in the world. Obedience to God’s commandments is to come as the natural result of the stellar relationship we are to have with Him, and is to be witnessed in positive, tangible fruit via acts of kindness and mercy, and in possessing great wisdom and discernment in tough situations—as all are to be informed by the instruction of Moses’ Teaching. An overwhelming amount of love and patience for others, particularly those we might disagree with, is certainly to be evidence of the Lord transcribing His Torah onto our hearts.

Our ministry does very much believe in “One Law” for all of God’s people, and that we are to all hear and follow Moses’ Teaching. But, Torah observance is not the beginning and end to one’s faith, and ritual or outward holiness is largely meaningless if it is unaccompanied by ethical and moral holiness. If we do not know how to love God and neighbor by submitting ourselves to a more targeted obedience to the Law, then what have we done? If we hit others with a hard stick of legalism, rather than welcome them into our homes and fellowships with a carrot of generosity to experience the blessings of God’s Torah firsthand, then we misrepresent the gracious Heavenly Father we serve. If we do not emphasize mutual respect and honor for Judaism and Christianity, and the positive ways that they have both employed the Law of Moses over the centuries (as incomplete as some of them may have been), then how do we ever hope to see diverse groups of people today, who look to the Holy One of Israel, to come closer together?

The answers to these and other questions are out there, although they will not come instantaneously. It might not be big organizations or ministries with something to lose, who have a pattern of releasing bullish white papers or vindictive responses and counter-responses, who ultimately achieve God’s mission. Instead, the mission is more likely to be achieved by individuals who can understand what it really means for the Holy Spirit’s work inside of everyone to accomplish “the righteous requirements of the law” (Romans 8:4, NIV), and who simply desire to serve the Lord and follow Him. It is individual disciples whom Yeshua prayed would be one (John 17:11, 22), not those jockeying for positions of influence and power, either for or against the “One Law” issue.

Let us commit ourselves to be men and women of God, empowered by His Spirit, guided by the love of Yeshua—and keep His commandments while spreading His goodness to all!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 12

[1]

Important Note: This article was originally posted to the TNN Online website 12 August, 2010. This was three months before another article, which has the same exact title, was released:

Toby Janicki. “One Law for All” Messiah Journal Issue 105, Fall 2010/5771.

[2] This information includes, but is not limited to: Tim Hegg (2003). Is the Torah Only for Jews? Torah Resource. Available online via <http://torahresource.com>; Daniel Juster and Russ Resnik (2005). One Law Movements: A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations. Available online via <http://umjc.org>; Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster. “‘One Law’ and the Messianic Gentile” Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009/5769; Aaron Eby, Toby Janicki, Daniel Lancaster, and Boaz Michael. (2009). Divine Invitation: An Apostolic Call to Torah. First Fruits of Zion. Available online via <http://ffoz.org>; Tim Hegg (2009). An Assessment of the “Divine Invitation” Teaching. Torah Resource. Available online via <http://torahresource.com>; Toby Janicki. “We are the God-Fearers” Messiah Journal Issue 103, Spring 2010/5770; Rick Spurlock (2010). Biblical Unity Versus Divine Invitation Theology. Bereans Online. Available online via <http://www.bereansonline.org>.

[3] Unfortunately in my experience in interacting with the different sides (both pro and con) of the One Law issue, I have encountered very few people who have yet to really understand N.T. Wright’s sound word, “there are two ways of winning a battle. You can do your best to kill as many enemies as you can until few if any are left to oppose you. Or you can simply outflank your opponents so that they realize their position is unsustainable” (Justification [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009], pp 30-31).

He also properly says, “It is really high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage...[I have] a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussions, especially when they all use code names: was it for this that the creator God made human beings?” (Ibid., pp 26-27). Much of the debate over the One Law issue has erupted on various Internet blogs, and on blogs there is often a dynamic present of provoking and antagonizing people to anger. It should go without saying that this is not a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

[4] Prof. Maletz’ curriculum vitae is available online at <ou.edu/cas/psc/Maletz/maletzhome.htm>.

[5] Cf. Mitchell Cohen and Nicole Fermon, eds., Princeton Readings in Political Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).

[6] Consult the article “The Message of Exodus” by J.K. McKee.

[7] Walter C. Kaiser, “Exodus,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:380.

[8] Peter Enns, The NIV Application Commentary: Exodus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 252.

[9] William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988), 64.

[10] John I. Durham, Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus, Vol 3 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 173.

[11] Richard Elliot Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 212.

[12] Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 64.

[13] While pesach is often associated with the commemoration of Ancient Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, let us not forget that the term can also be used in relation to “lambs for pesaḥ” or “sacrificial animals for pesaḥ” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols. [Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2001], 2:948).

[14] Walter Bruggemann, “The Book of Exodus,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 783.

[15] “[C]ircumcision was not an exclusively Israelite practice. Rather, the rite was common among most of those with whom Israel had direct contact...practiced in one form or another from at least the third millennium B.C....In these other ancient Near Eastern cultures, circumcision seems to have been chiefly a marriage or fertility rite, carried out either at puberty or as part of the prenuptial ceremony” (P.R. Williamson, “Circumcision,” in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003], 122).

[16] Terence E. Fretheim, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Ezekiel (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), 143.

[17] Enns, Exodus, 251.

[18] J.A. Motyer, The Message of Exodus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 148.

[19] Ibid., 149.

[20] Brian D. Russell, “Exodus,” in Joel B. Green and William H. Willimon, eds., The Wesley Study Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 84.

[21] Motyer, Exodus, 149.

[22] Consult the relevant chapters in the Messianic Spring Holiday Helper by TNN Press.

[23] For an evaluation of the Last Supper, consult the article “The Last Sedar and Yeshua’s Passover Chronology” by J.K. McKee.

[24] Samuel E. Balentine, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Leviticus (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002), 62.

[25] Ibid.

[26] John E. Hartley, Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Vol 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 87.

[27] Linguistically, “there is one law for them,” the plural l’hem applies to the two different sacrifices, and not “for them” applying to the priest, especially as ha’kohen is singular.

[28] Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, revised edition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 58.

[29] Walter C. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” in NIB, 1:1049.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Baruch A. Levine, JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 41.

[32] R.K. Harrison, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 78.

[33] HALOT, 1:651-652.

[34] Cf. Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), pp 289-291.

[35] Hartley, 409.

[36] Tidball, Leviticus, 289.

[37] HALOT, 1:719.

[38] CHALOT, 244.

[39] Gordon J. Wenham, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 311 points out how “The same verb qillēl is used in Exod. 22 and this verse, also of cursing parents in Lev. 20:9,” which may shed some light on how the blasphemy of Leviticus 24:11 took place.

[40] Noth, Leviticus, 179.

Do recognize that as an adherent of the JEDP documentary hypothesis, Noth further concludes, “the phrasing...points to exilic or post-exilic times” (Ibid.).

[41] Hartley, 410.

[42] Ibid.

Balentine, 190 also thinks “While resident aliens would not be required to worship Israel’s God, they would be expected to honor the prohibitions against cursing God.” This is a somewhat odd conclusion, though, as an entire selection of Torah passages demonstrates how the ger/sojourner follows Moses’ Teaching along with the ezrach/native (see section below, “What the ‘One Law’ Passages Communicate”).

[43] Levine, 167.

[44] Hartley, 411 explains further developments into the Second Temple era on how the subject of blasphemy was viewed by the Jewish religious authorities (cf. m.Sanhedrin 7:5; b.Sanhedrin 56).

[45] Heb. shalem.

[46] Wenham, Leviticus, 311; consult W.W. Davies, The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2006), pp 85-86 for a selection from the Code of Hammurabi.

[47] Friedman, 399.

[48] Levine, 168.

[49] J.H. Hertz, ed., Pentateuch & Haftorahs (London: Soncino, 1960), 527.

[50] This is why Moses’ murder of the Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:12, 14) was really not the major controversy, as being a prince of Egypt he could probably have murdered an entire order of taskmasters or sent a legion of soldiers to death with little more than a censure; the issue was Moses’ self-awareness of being an Israelite, and not an Egyptian.

[51] Balentine, 190.

[52] Harrison, Leviticus, 222.

[53] Chuqah means “something prescribed, enactment, statute” (Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979], 349).

[54] Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Book of Numbers,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 87.

[55] R.K. Harrison, Numbers: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 161.

[56] Dennis T. Olson, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Numbers (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1996), 51.

[57] Nili S. Fox, “Numbers,” in Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 303.

[58] Cf. Timothy R. Ashley, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: Book of Numbers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp 180-181.

[59] The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp 285-287.

While I do not necessarily observe Easter Sunday as a Messianic Believer, I do very much recognize that Christians over the centuries have always appreciated the message of the Passover and have seen the message that it conveys to our faith in Jesus. Consult the article “Passover: Paradox or Outreach” by Mark Huey, appearing in the Messianic Spring Holiday Helper.

[60] Roy Gane, NIV Application Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 620.

[61] Friedman, 577.

[62] Dozeman, in NIB, 2:127.

[63] Jacob Milgrom, JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 121.

[64] Olson, 93.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yeshua” (Galatians 3:28).

[68] “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).

[69] Harrison, Numbers, 224.

He does use the actual description “potential converts,” which can be confusing given the debate over ger meaning either “sojourner” or “proselyte” (discussed further).

[70] Victor P. Hamilton, “shagah/shegagah,” in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:904.

[71] To this, could be considered the later word of Isaiah 24:5, “The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant.”

[72] Ibid., 227.

[73] Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 117.

[74] Milgrom, pp 124-125.

[75] The verb gadaf, appearing in the Piel stem (intensive action, active voice), means “revile, blaspheme” (BDB, 154).

[76] Elmer B. Smick, “karat,” in TWOT, 1:457.

[77] Ashley, 289.

[78] Olson, 95.

[79] Dozeman, in NIB, 2:128.

Note how he has fully said “The exact meaning of this phrase in priestly tradition is not clear,” being an advocate of the JEDP documentary hypothesis.

[80] Milgrom, 399.

[81] R.J.D. Knauth, “Alien, Foreign Resident,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, pp 30, 31.

[82] T.M. Mauch, “Sojourner,” in George Buttrick, ed. et. al., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 4:398 expresses how the sojourner “is almost an Israelite,” and D.I. Block, “Sojourner; Alien; Stranger,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. et. al., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4:562 indicates, “sojourners were to be treated for the most part just like ordinary Israelites.” John R. Spencer, “Sojourner,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:104 further says, “Often these foreigners are subject to the same laws as the Israelites (Exod 12:49; Num 15:16)...Only occasionally is there a law which makes a distinction between Israelite and sojourner (cf. Deut 14:21).”

[83] Cf. Block, “Sojourner,” in ISBE, 4:562.

[84] Heb. kol-divrei ha’Torah ha’zot.

[85] The Greek term ekklēsia, often rendered as “church” in today’s Bibles, “in the Septuagint [is] often equivalent to [qahal], the assembly of the Israelites” (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003], 196), and would have been specifically employed by the Apostles to describe the First Century Body of Messiah’s undeniable origins in Ancient Israel.

Cf. K.L. Schmidt, “ekklēsía,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp 397-402.

[86] Olson, 52.

[87] “The next day he saw Yeshua coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” (John 1:29).

[88] Gordon J. Wenham, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Numbers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981), 99.

[89] I would argue that if an uncircumcised man enters into faith in an uncircumcised status, circumcision should not at all be pressed as a pre-condition of faith. As an uncircumcised man progresses in faith, similar to how Abraham was circumcised at the age of ninety-nine (Genesis 17:23-24) long after he was called into covenant with God (Genesis 15:18), then circumcision as a useful act of obedience, as well as an hygienic medical procedure, may be in order.

[90] David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1991), pp 25, 26.

[91] The verb orthotomeō is more accurately rendered as “accurately handling” (NASU) or “correctly handles” (NIV).

[92] Do keep in mind that within the Commonwealth of Nations, not every member recognizes the British monarch as its head of state, as a majority of Commonwealth members are actually republics with an elected head of state.

[93] Frederick William Danker, ed., et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 845.

[94] Cf. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 654; Plato Republic 10.619c; Aristotle Politics 3.6.1278b; 3.7.1279a; 2 Maccabees 8:17.

Often together, the related terms “[politeia] and [politeuma] are said to have the same force” (Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Vol 42 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990], 137).

[95] For a further discussion, consult the relevant sections of the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[96] BDAG, 845.

[97] Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, second edition (Cleveland: Wiley Publishing, Inc, 2002), 509.

[98] Kaiser, in NIB, 2:1164.

[99] Arthur G. Patzia & Anthony G. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 95.

[100] R.J.D. Knauth, “Alien, Foreign Resident,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, 27.

HALOT, 1:201, notes the Aramaic term giorah or “proselyte.”

Also to be recognized is how a Greek form of ger, geiōras, appears once in the Septuagint (Exodus 12:19).

[101] Cf. Ibid., pp 29-30.

[102] Ibid., 29.

[103] Ibid., 31.

[104] IVPBBC actually says on Deuteronomy 14:21, “In a protein-starved area such as ancient Israel, it would have been almost criminal to let good meat go to waste” (John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 184).

[105] Milgrom, pp 398-399.

[106] Knauth, “Alien, Foreign Resident,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, 32.

[107] HALOT, 1:201.

[108] “Solomon numbered all the aliens who were in the land of Israel, following the census which his father David had taken; and 153,600 were found” (2 Chronicles 2:17).

[109] Block, “Sojourner,” in ISBE, 4:562.

[110] Noth, Numbers, 72.

[111] Ibid.

[112] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004), 263.

While BDB, 158 does include the definition of “proselyte” for the Hebrew ger, this is likely an employment of the more general usage of “proselyte” in theological language, than the Jewish proselyte of the Second Temple period.

[113] Noth, Numbers, 115.

[114] Milgrom, 401.

Also Jeffrey H. Tigay: “In later halakhic exegesis, when ‘ger’ (‘stranger’) is understood as ‘proselyte,’ this v. is understood as prescribing equality between proselytes and born Jews...” (Jewish Study Bible, 131).

[115] Ibid., 402.

[116] Philo Judeaus: The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 538.

[117] BibleWorks 7.0: Louw-Nida Lexicon. MS Windows XP. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2006. CD-ROM.

John H. Walton, NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), pp 341-342 argues that the remes referred to in Genesis 9:3 are largely game animals that travel in herds, providing corroborating evidence from the Akkadian cognate nammashtu and the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.

For a further discussion, consult the exegetical paper on Genesis 9:3-7, “Why Meat?” by J.K. McKee.

[118] Thayer, 600.

[119] BDAG, 962.

[120] LS, 691.

[121] Thayer, 546.

[122] Frederick W. Danker, “Proselyte, Proselytism,” in Everett F. Harrison, ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), 425.

[123] BDAG, 879.

AMG further notes, as its first description for prosēlutos,

“[M]asc. noun from prosérchomai...to come near, come to. A stranger, foreigner, one who comes from his own people to another” (Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament [Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1993], 1231).

[124] David M. Moffitt (2009). P.Duk.inv. 727: New Evidence for the Meaning and Provenance of the Word [Prosēlutos]. Available upon request via his curriculum vitae at <duke.edu/~dmm20/curriculum_vitae.html>.

Since 2009, Dr. Moffitt has moved to the faculty of Campbell University Divinity School <http://divinity.campbell.edu/Academics/FacultyStaff/DrDavidMoffitt.aspx>. The analysis about the Greek term prosēlutos was formally published as, David M. Moffit and C. Jacob Butera. “P.Duk. inv. 727r: New Evidence for the Meaning and Provenance of the Word [Prosēlutos]” in Journal of Biblical Literature 132 no. 1 (2013):159-178.

[125] Ibid.

[126] “ger,” in Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, eds. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 249.

[127] Ibid.

[128] S. McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), pp 840-841.

Among his references include: Tobit 1:7-8; Testament of Levi 14:4; Testament of Naphtali 1:10; Philo Special Laws 1.51-53; On Rewards and Punishments 61; Josephus Wars of the Jews 7.45; b.Shabbat 31a.

[129] Ibid., 844.

[130] Ibid., 845.

[131] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. MS Windows XP. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. CD-ROM.

[132] Consult the article “The Impact of the Maccabees on First Century Judaism” by J.K. McKee, appearing in the Messianic Winter Holiday Helper.

[133] McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 845.

[134] Flavius Josephus: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 626.

[135] McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 845.

[136] The young disciple Timothy was circumcised by Paul, specifically because he was half-Jewish and half-Greek, and it could have caused some problems when witnessing the gospel to Jewish non-Believers (Acts 16:1-3).

[137] McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 844.

Also to be considered could be a much earlier scene in Esther 8:17.

[138] Grk. parangellō; “generally, to give the word, give orders, of the general” (LS, 594).

[139] Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988), 604.

[140] Margaret Wenig Rubenstein and David Weiner, trans., in Ibid., 167.

[141] Grk. hoi pateres hēmōn pantes; “our ancestors...all” (NRSV/TNIV).

[142] Richard B. Hays, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: 1 Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 160.

[143] Craig S. Keener, IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 336.

[144] Note how anēr or “man/male” is not employed in this verse, not only implying that females can be applicable to this, but that in the Epistle to the Galatians the “circumcision” refuted is not an operation but the ritual of a proselyte.

[145] Thayer, 469.

[146] Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 259.

[147] Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 366.

[148] Wise, Abegg, and Cook, 132.

[149] Betz, 260 notes that to the Qumran community “keeping the whole Torah meant for them additional requirements, which made their observance more radical than that of ordinary Jews.”

[150] Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, Vol 41 (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1990), 227 for some useful observations on how meticulous, or even a bit paranoid, some ancient Jews were about keeping all of the Law.

[151] For a further evaluation, consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Galatians 5:2-3.”

[152] Consult some of the useful thoughts of G.R. Beasley-Murray, “Dying and Rising with Christ,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), pp 218-222.

[153] Patrice Fischer, “Modern-Day Godfearers: A Biblical Model For Gentile Participation in Messianic Congregations,” in John Fischer, ed., The Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in Messianic Judaism (Baltimore: Lederer, 2000), pp 178, 180.

[154] McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 846.

[155] T.R. Schreiner, “Proselyte,” in ISBE, 4:1010.

[156] “god-fearing, devout” (BDAG, 452).

[157] “This quasi-official participation in Judaism has been recently confirmed by the discovery in Aprodisias [current southwest Turkey] of a stele that dates to about A.D. 210...In a list of subscribers to a Jewish institution or burial society there are three proselytes (a. lines 13, 17, 22) and two ‘Godfearers’ (theosebēs, lines 19-20)” (McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 846).

[158] “reverence for God or set of beliefs and practices relating to interest in God, piety, godliness” (BDAG, 452).

[159] G. Bertram, “theosebēs, thesébeia,” in TDNT, 331.

[160] Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26, 43.

[161] LS, 725; Acts 13:43; 50, 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7.

[162] Schreiner, “Proselyte,” in ISBE, 3:1010.

[163] Ibid.

[164] Psalm 15:4; 22:23; 25:12; 115:11, 13; 118:4; 135:20; Malachi 3:16; 4:2; et. al.

[165] Grk. tōn te sebomenōn Hellēnōn.

[166] “In Eph. 2:19ff. especially, Paul emphasizes that the...Christians [meaning, Believers] are no longer to view themselves as ‘strangers and aliens’ (xénoi kai pároikoi; cf. Heb. gēr weṯôšāḇ), but fellow citizens (sympolitai) with the saints of the household of God” (Block, “Sojourner,” in ISBE, 4:561).

The Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament rendered xenoi kai poroikoi in Ephesians 2:19, as gerim v’toshavim.

[167] “The Christians in the diaspora are compared to the Israelites and Judeans sojourning in exile (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11ff), and they are instructed about their conduct” (Ibid., 4:563).

[168] Genesis 17:7-8; 20:1; 21:34; 23:4.

[169] Genesis 19:9.

[170] Genesis 28:4; 32:4.

[171] Genesis 47:4, 9.

[172] Exodus 2:22; 18:3.

[173] Genesis 15:13; 47:4, 9; Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Leviticus 19:34; Deuteronomy 10:19; 23:7.

[174] This is something that will evaluated with a variety of topics in the forthcoming book Torah In the Balance, Volume II.

[175] Consult the exegetical paper on Galatians 3:28, “Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement” by J.K. McKee.

[176] This is most frequently manifested in various Messianic teachings on the Apostolic Scriptures, when references from ancient Jewish literature are consulted or made, and references from ancient classical literature are not—even if the latter could be employed solely to prove the superiority of the Bible over human philosophy. I have witnessed too many vague references made over the years to the boogeyman of the “Greek mindset,” with hardly any firsthand engagement with relevant Hellenistic figures like Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, or Xenophon.

[177] Note that I am of the position that within the Epistle to the Romans, there is specific instruction delivered to the Jewish Believers, as well as the non-Jewish Believers, the two groups who made up the Roman congregation(s). Romans 2:29 is such targeted instruction.

For further consideration, consult the article “The Message of Romans” by J.K. McKee.

[178] “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish [uphold, RSV/NIV] the Law” (Romans 3:31).

[179] N. Burwash, ed., Wesley’s Doctrinal Standards Part I: The Sermons, with Introductions, Analysis, and Notes (Salem, OH: Schmul Publishing, 1988), 368.

[180] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.

[181] Consult the article “What is the New Covenant?” by J.K. McKee, appearing in The New Testament Validates Torah.

[182] The issue of “Sunday Sabbath” keeping by Christians over the centuries is planned to be explored in the Messianic Sabbath Helper by TNN Press (forthcoming).

[183] Please note that it is our plan, at the appropriate moment sometime in the future, to write about the various experiences that our family has undergone leading us into the Messianic movement, and in keeping us in the Messianic movement.

-13-

The Significance of the Messiah Event

2013

Margaret McKee Huey and J.K. McKee

“[B]ut now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested

to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26).

If you were to ask a great number of contemporary Messianic people—especially various individuals within the One Torah/One Law sub-movement—what the most important event in human history has been, you are probably going to be told that it was the giving of the Torah to Ancient Israel on Mount Sinai. There is no doubting to be sure, that the Exodus of the Ancient Israelites from Egypt, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the codification of the Torah or Pentateuch, is absolutely imperative to understand and appreciate Biblical history and God’s plan of redemption for humanity. Up until the First Century C.E., the Exodus and the giving of the Torah was, without question, the most important event in human history.[1] Yet as Paul would say in Romans 3:21, “now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.” Previously, God’s righteous vindication had been principally seen in the event of the deliverance of His people via the Exodus—but later His righteousness would be seen in an event quite distinct from the recorded history of the Torah, but something most imperatively testified to come by the witness and typologies of the Torah and Prophets.

Given the significance of the Exodus of Ancient Israel and the giving of the Torah, for much of the Biblical narrative of both the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures—is there at all an event in human history which can exceed its importance? Yes! Romans 3:22 further speaks of “the righteousness of God through faith in Yeshua the Messiah for all those who believe.” If the genitive clause (case indicating possession) pisteōs Iēsou Christou is taken as a subjective genitive, then the verse reads as “the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah for all those who believe,” as the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah should be taken to represent His obedience to the Father unto death, to provide permanent atonement for the sin of all human beings.[2]

Outreach Israel Ministries and TNN Online have always held to the truth that the most important event in human history is the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. The significance of the Messiah event is imperative for each of us to contemplate, because without it we would have no permanent atonement and forgiveness available for our sins. The Messiah event is to be what decisively defines us as men and women who have acknowledged Yeshua (Jesus) as our Redeemer and King. This reality is to be what we recognize as the climax of salvation history, to perhaps be only surpassed by the future arrival of the Eternal State itself.[3]

It is sorry to have to say this, but the importance of the Messiah event has, over the years, been most difficult to focus the attention of many contemporary Messianic individuals upon. In much of today’s Messianic community, many people have adopted an unbridled enthusiasm and zeal for the Torah. While on the one hand, it is to be absolutely lauded that both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers will find themselves every week, considering the foundational instructions of Moses’ Teaching—it is to be widely lamented when one’s daily and weekly spiritual regimen is focused almost exclusively on the Pentateuch. The problem we have to seriously confront, is not with people studying the weekly Torah portions and being concerned with a greater and more targeted obedience to God; the problem is when the Torah becomes more important than the One who saved us from our sins, and the unique work that He has accomplished for us. Make no mistake about it: for many Messianic people, the Torah or Law of Moses is more important than the Messiah. The significance of the Messiah event, for evaluating salvation history and the plan of God, can be a distant afterthought or an overlooked footnote.

For many people, especially non-Jewish Messianics from evangelical Christian backgrounds, experiencing a spiritual season where there can be an over-emphasis upon the Torah, or Pentateuch, can be a bit understandable. After all, many Christians who enter into the Messianic movement have a spirituality that is devoid of anything “Old Testament.” But, if in their acclimation to their Hebraic Roots, and in getting acquainted with God’s Torah—there is no delicate balance with, or appreciation of, the rest of the Scriptures—the spirituality of such people can still remain lopsided. Unfortunately, much blame can be placed at the feet of those who facilitate many independent “Torah studies,” and who have not aided new Messianic people sufficiently enough in maintaining Yeshua the Messiah at the center of their faith. At the same time, more admonition can be placed upon various leaders and Torah teachers, who have not adequately taken the time—or even thought it necessary—to consider the theological and spiritual gravity of the Messiah event.

It is absolutely true that Yeshua Himself explicitly stated that He did not come to abolish the Torah or Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Every Messianic person we know believes that Yeshua did not abolish the Law of Moses, and that it remains valid instruction for Believers today. Such fulfillment does not only involve the completion of various Tanach prophecies regarding the Messiah’s arrival on the stage of human history, but also involves Yeshua’s own teachings and example which bring greater dimension, depth, and application to the Torah.[4]

To their credit, there are various Protestant Christian traditions which have always adhered to the (presumed) moral and ethical commandments of the Law as having validity for all people of all generations, and they have a widespread legacy of good works of kindness and mercy associated with them (cf. James 1:27). They have only considered things like the seventh-day Sabbath, appointed times of Leviticus 23, or kosher eating, to be required of Ancient Israel or the Jewish people for the pre-resurrection era, and that they do not carry on into the post-resurrection era. An Old Testament theologian like Walter C. Kaiser, from the Reformed tradition, expresses the view, “Only those laws from which Christ releases his church may be jettisoned,”[5] meaning those things directly impacted by the Messiah’s sacrificial work. Kaiser and Messianic Believers, like the authors of this article, actually have no disagreement on the general validity of the Torah; we just differ on the matter of how much actually has changed with Yeshua’s arrival, and we would interpret various passages in the Apostolic Scriptures regarding some specific Torah practices a bit differently.

Yeshua’s fulfillment of the Torah should not at all be thought to exclude changes naturally resultant from His sacrificial work—if indeed His sacrificial work is recognized to be the most important event in human history. However, it can be quite safe to conclude that while there are various changes which have been enacted to the role of the Torah, by the Messiah’s sacrifice—as they involve things like capital punishment or the Levitical priesthood—that the considerable bulk of daily and weekly instructions, including keeping Shabbat or eating kosher, remain intact. There are others in the Messianic community, though, who think that nothing substantial has changed between the eras prior to and following Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection—and that things remain relatively the same. This is a definite problem for which some resolution needs to be decisively offered. The most important event to manifest itself in salvation history, at present, has to be given its proper place within the spirituality and theology of contemporary Messianic Believers.

No changes of any kind in the post-resurrection era?

Many of today’s Christian people think that on this side of Yeshua’s sacrifice, on this side of the cross within the post-resurrection era, that the Law of Moses has been completely abolished, and that things have completely changed. This is obviously a position which today’s Messianic Believers do not agree with. Yet at the same time, many of today’s Messianic people will argue in reverse—even vehemently perhaps—that there have been no changes at all since the death and resurrection of the Messiah. It is not at all uncommon, for example, when suggesting to a Messianic, “Torah observant” person that there have been some alterations enacted to the role of various parts of the Torah, such as capital punishment or the Levitical priesthood, within the post-resurrection era, to be haphazardly quoted Malachi 3:6a: “For I, the LORD, do not change...,” ki ani ADONAI lo shani’ti.

It should be stressed that when we talk about alterations being enacted by the sacrificial work of the Messiah, which affect various aspects of the Torah, that the authors are not saying that Yeshua abolished the seventh-day Sabbath, appointed times, kosher, or even male circumcision. We are talking about adequately factoring in the once-for-all-sacrifice of the Eternal Son of God, to permanently atone for human sin, and how the most important event in human history has undeniably affected some of the dynamics. Malachi 3:6, in its entirety, reads “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” The Hebrew verb shanah, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice), means “change,” “be different,” or “repeat, do s.thg again” (CHALOT).[6] Malachi 3:6 speaks of the immutable, unchanging character of our Eternal God, who is able to restrain Himself and be fair in judgment, unlike limited mortals who are unfair and who change at a whim. While God’s character is surely expressed through the principles and virtues of Moses’ Teaching, God’s character has been manifestly expressed through His Son Yeshua being sacrificed for human sin.

Natural change, occurring through the progression of salvation history, does not at all necessitate, or even permit, the abrogation of the principles God’s Torah. But, the sacrifice of Yeshua will necessitate a reorientation of various instructions previously given to regulate sin in the pre-resurrection era, and will have to take into serious consideration a trajectory of Scripture to return humanity to an idyllic condition, which was lost at the Fall with Adam and Eve.

The significance of the Messiah event, and the natural changes it has enacted, can be easily seen when one considers the words of Ephesians 3:5-6, which speak of “the mystery of Messiah, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” A major part of this mystery is that “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:7). Those from the nations, who put their trust in Israel’s Messiah, are to be regarded as citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19). While the Torah, for example, afforded a great deal of equality to the ancient sojourner in the community of Ancient Israel; the work of Israel’s Messiah offers a level of inclusion within an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel, and a total equality, that can only be fully realized in His saving activity for all people.[7]

You may get a concession from a few people within the One Torah/One Law sub-movement, that indeed, in the post-resurrection era non-Jewish people do get to be much more easily included into the community of Israel, then the gerim or sojourners got included in the Pentateuch—as revolutionary as the inclusion of the sojourner in Israel surely was for the Torah as Ancient Near Eastern law. But, some people within the “Torah movement,” quite disturbingly, are often not too prone to consider a statement like that of Hebrews 10:10: “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all.” Hebrews 9:26 also states, “now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” with the main work remaining being His return and the resurrection of the righteous dead (cf. Hebrews 9:28). These are historical events, as testified by Holy Scriptures, which have altered spiritual realities to some degree.

While none of us should doubt future activities regarding the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system, in association with the Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and Millennial Kingdom (cf. Ezekiel chs. 40-44)—as Hebrews 7:18 only speaks of a “setting aside” of the Levitical priesthood, presumably until future prophecies occur[8]—it would be impossible to argue from the Apostolic Scriptures that the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system maintains the exact same significance on this side of Yeshua’s sacrifice, that it did prior to His arrival. Hebrews 9:12 specifies, after all, “through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” It is further stated, “The Torah has a shadow of the good things to come—not the form itself of the realities. For this reason it can never, by means of the same sacrifices year after year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers—cleansed once and for all—would no longer have consciousness of sins?” (Hebrews 10:1-2, TLV).

One of the most difficult verses of the Apostolic Scriptures, which contemporary Messianics have had to deal with, is where Hebrews 7:12 does speak of how “when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” Here, one encounters both metatithemenēs tēs hierōsunēs and nomou metathesis, “priesthood is altered” and “an alteration of law” (TLV), stated. What does a “change of law” represent or involve? It is easily discerned within the context of Hebrews ch. 7 that, in light of the Messiah’s sacrificial and priestly work, that involves a transition of service from the Levitical priesthood to the previous Melchizedekian priesthood. Yeshua the Messiah operates in Heaven as a Melchizedekian priest (Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:15, 17).

In his Complete Jewish Bible, David H. Stern renders Hebrews 7:12 with, “For if the system of cohanim [priests] is transformed, there must of necessity occur a transformation of Torah.” He justifies this on the basis that “no change or transformation in Torah is envisioned other than in connection with the priesthood and sacrificial system. The term ‘metathesis’ implies retention of the basic structure of Torah, with some of its elements rearranged (‘transformed’); it does not imply abrogation of either the Torah as a whole or of mitzvot [commandments] not connected with the priesthood and the sacrificial system.”[9] These conclusions are most useful. The nomou metathesis most certainly includes a recognition of Yeshua the Messiah as the central focus of the Father’s redemptive activity (cf. Hebrews 1:1-4; 13:8), because only the Messiah event can substantially “change” anything as it regards the approach God’s people have to key aspects of the Torah.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, as any cursory reading or survey will reveal, is concerned about how various First Century Jewish Believers (and probably many non-Jewish Believers as well) were going to handle the reality that Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood. The author of Hebrews’ issue was not with the Ten Commandments, or how Yeshua directed His followers to observe the Torah most especially in matters of relationship with other people (i.e., Matthew chs. 5-7). One cannot use Hebrews 7:12 and the “change in law” to cast aside the significance of the seventh-day Sabbath/Shabbat, the appointed times, or kosher dietary laws—much less any of the Torah’s commandments regulating human ethics and morality. One can use Hebrews 7:12 to argue that the “change in law,” required by Yeshua’s priesthood, involves the capital penalties of the Torah being remitted by His sacrifice at Golgotha (cf. Colossians 2:14), and various rearrangements and reprioritizations naturally enacted by what the Lord has accomplished.

There is some difficulty presented here to various Messianic people today, who might believe or try to argue, that every single commandment of the Torah can be followed today. This precludes that with the coming of Yeshua nothing has changed, and humankind still needs ongoing animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. But the coming of Yeshua to Planet Earth did change things, just as the development of economics and technology has rendered certain aspects of the Torah unapplicable to its followers, such as the laws concerning slavery.[10]

Yeshua asserted in His Sermon on the Mount, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-19, RSV). It is common, in many evangelical Christian sectors, to conclude that this means that the Messiah came to only fulfill the Torah’s prophecies, but His fulfillment obviously involves much more (cf. Matthew 3:15). Alas, though, properly evaluating the significance of the Messiah event in human history, and how it has affected the role of the Torah, is one which has become far too polarized in recent days via the actions of many “Torah observant” Messianic people. The Messiah event, and the natural changes resultant of Yeshua’s sacrifice, have been widely ignored. The following observation of R.T. France is well taken:

“[T]he authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished. They remain the authoritative word of God. But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus’ followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is now the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created.”[11]

Various Christian traditions, which rightly think that the Law has not been abolished, can go a bit too far, in only thinking that the Torah’s ethical and moral instructions are what exclusively remain valid for the post-resurrection era. Many in the One Law sub-movement, however, would be unwilling to concede the presence of some alterations in terms of the Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices, and capital punishment for the post-resurrection era—all areas of the Torah, which it is safe to say, have been directly affected by Yeshua’s offering up of Himself.

Where has change been affected by the Messiah event?

What are some of the most significant areas which have been affected by Yeshua’s sacrifice for sinful humanity? These are areas where there is a growing amount of spiritual and theological tension developing within various parts of the broad Messianic community:

1.  The animal sacrifices and associated Levitical priesthood have been side aside until the prophecies of the Tribulation period and Millennium are to occur: “For on the one hand, a former requirement is set aside because of its weakness and ineffectiveness...For the Torah appoints as kohanim g’dolim [high priests] men who have weakness; but the word of the oath [cf. Psalm 110:4], which came after the Torah, appoints a Son—made perfect forever” (Hebrews 7:18, 28, TLV).

2.. The Torah’s code of capital punishment may be regarded as having been nailed to the cross, and absorbed by the sacrifice of Yeshua: “He wiped out the handwritten record of debts with the decrees against us, which was hostile to us. He took it away by nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14, TLV).

3.  The equality of all people, particularly males and females which was lost at the Fall (Genesis 3:16b), has been restored: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yeshua” (Galatians 3:28; contra. t.Berachot 6:18). Concurrent with this, there is to be a decisive restructuring of familial authority on the basis of mutual submission, and the service of husband and wife to one another as co-leaders of the home (Ephesians 5:21ff, esp. 5:30, 33).

4.  The sign of male circumcision, as an identifying feature of God’s people, is to be viewed as secondary to water immersion, which is not only to be associated with Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection—but is something that can be practiced by both males and females: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Messiah Yeshua have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

These four areas listed above, which we would assert have been directly impacted by the Messiah event, are places where Outreach Israel and TNN Online will find itself, at times, running into some level of clashes with various other Messianic ministries and groups, across the broad Messianic spectrum:

1.  There are Messianic people you will encounter, who have widely disregarded the Epistle to the Hebrews as inspired Scripture. They cannot handle its author’s assertions about the superior sacrifice of Yeshua, the Messiah serving as a Melchizdekian priest, and the limitations of the First Century C.E. Levitical priesthood when compared and contrasted to Yeshua’s priesthood. While there is no doubting the fact that there are some challenging passages within Hebrews—perhaps due to ancient First Century background issues, textual issues via the Greek Septuagint, or transmission issues from Hebrews’ Greek source text into English—tossing a book out of the Bible by any Messianic person, sets a dangerous precedent, when instead some (significant) effort should be expelled to understand a text.[12]

2.  Many Messianic people today, and even some Messianic teachers and leaders, are unsure of what to do with Colossians 2:14. Much of this is because of how many contemporary Christians will just quote Colossians 2:14 haphazardly, and assert that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross of Christ. If we treat Paul’s letter to the Colossians with any degree of respect, one has to acknowledge that something was nailed to the execution-stake of Yeshua. Many Christians since the Reformation have rightly asserted that the Torah was not nailed to the cross, but instead either the record of human sin and/or the capital penalties of the Torah which were absorbed by the Messiah.[13] For Messianic people who acknowledge the Messiah event as the most important event in history, recognizing that what was nailed to the cross as the capital penalties of the Torah—and that capital punishment should scarcely be used today—is not a problem. But, there are many other Messianic people who do not consider Yeshua’s sacrifice as the most important event in history.[14]

3.  The issue of equality, for all people in Messiah, is one which the Messianic movement is presently debating right now, on multiple planes. There is debate within Messianic Judaism right now over what way to approach the facets of distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in the Scriptures. A great number within the One Torah/One Law sub-movement adhere to a patriarchal model of leadership within both the family and congregation. Those who adhere to an egalitarian model within both the family and congregation, and how it is to affect Jewish and non-Jewish relations in the Body of Messiah, have to be considerably steadfast in the present season. For, we believe that a major part of the purpose of God is to return humanity to the equal state in which Adam and Even existed in Eden. Various instructions in the Torah which appear to be upholding a male-exclusive leadership model, instead should be read from the Thirteenth Century B.C.E. vantage point as widely subverting male-exclusive Ancient Near Eastern law codes contemporary to Ancient Israel, affording a much higher level of respect and rights to females.[15]

4.  The rite of male circumcision, particularly for native-born Jews and Israelites, is not something that has been abolished by the Messiah. And, while non-Jewish males have not directly received the covenant of circumcision as physical descendants of Abraham, they are nonetheless recipients of its benefits, and should be circumcised with future eschatological realities in view (i.e., Ezekiel 44:9). Still, the emphasis of the Apostolic Scriptures in the post-resurrection era places a higher priority on circumcision of the heart brought about via the power of the good news (i.e., Colossians 2:11). More important to be sure, would be on how water immersion for both males and females enables them to identify with Yeshua’s work on the tree and His resurrection (Galatians 3:27), and with this in place, male circumcision has admittedly lost a degree of luster. Contemporary Messianics have not always noted how the Apostolic Scriptures place a higher priority on water immersion.[16]

On the cross or execution-stake, Yeshua uttered the ever-important words “It is finished!” and He died (John 19:30). The verb teleō, employed in the source text, can mean “to complete, fulfil, accomplish, and, generally, to execute, perform” (LS),[17] being related to the noun telos, which itself often means “the goal toward which a movement is being directed, end, goal, outcome” (BDAG; cf. Romans 10:4, Grk.).[18] Within the realm of lexical possibilities, John 19:30 can be rendered with “It is accomplished!” (CJB)[19] or “It has been brought to the goal!”, speaking of the final atonement for human sin being offered, and full reconciliation between humankind and its Creator now provided for.[20] To argue that “It is finished!” somehow pertains to a declaration made nullifying the Mosaic Torah, is quite out of place, as Yeshua’s words concern atonement of sins. What would be most appropriate would be to argue that “It is finished!” relates to the consummation, culmination, and goal of human history: that aim to which the Torah pointed.

However, when many of today’s Messianic people encounter Yeshua’s word in John 19:30, they do not know what to do. Why is this the case? This is because the Messiah event is not the most important event to them in history. Is this a result of “the message of the cross [being] foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18, TLV), and that many do not possess the salvation they think they do? We will have to leave the ultimate determination of the salvation of some “Torah observant” Messianic people to our Eternal God. But what we do know is that, within the present season of the development of the Messianic movement and Torah restoration, a sizeable enough group of people have lost sight of the Messiah event. They have overlooked, or just flat forgotten, how Yeshua “is the culmination of the law [the goal of the Torah, TLV][21] so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4, TNIV).

To acknowledge Yeshua’s sacrifice as the most important event in history, hardly means that the Torah has been abolished! The role of some practices and decrees have been reoriented for sure. Most importantly, Yeshua’s sacrifice has inaugurated the era of the New Covenant, which not only provides a permanent atonement for human sin, but also provides people with the Supernatural Compulsion to obey the Torah’s instructions—hardly an abolishment of Moses’ Teaching—as God’s Spirit transcribes it on the hearts and minds of men and women who have acknowledged Israel’s Messiah via the gospel and have been redeemed:

“For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, ‘THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY TORAH [more lit. ‘My laws,’ nomous Mou] UPON THEIR HEART, AND UPON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE IT’; He then says, ‘AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE” [Jeremiah 31:34]. Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Having therefore, brothers and sisters, confidence to enter into the holy place by the blood of Yeshua, by the way which He inaugurated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful” (Hebrews 10:14-23, author’s rendering from Hebrews for the Practical Messianic).

The Significance of the Messiah Event

An honest Bible reader cannot deny the fact that God’s people do live in a post-resurrection era, where the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah for human sins has changed a number of the dynamics. Yeshua’s work at Golgotha (Calvary) has enacted some alterations concerning the penalties of the Torah decreed upon Law-breakers being absorbed by the Messiah’s sacrifice (Colossians 2:14), and necessary reorientations regarding the animal sacrifices of the Torah and the Messiah’s Melchizedkian priesthood (Hebrews 7:12). Yet, God’s standard of sin still remains consistent, and His immutable character and requirement for His people to live holy remains constant. Yeshua’s sacrifice, per His own words about fulfilling and not abolishing the Torah (Matthew 5:17-19), do not make the Law of God, and the Tanach or Old Testament, irrelevant instruction and direction as far as His people are concerned. God’s standard defining both sinful behavior and holy behavior is first found in the Torah of Moses.

How we get many of today’s Messianic people back onto a path where they recognize Yeshua the Messiah, and what He has accomplished—as the center of their faith—might not be as easy as it should be in the short term. While individuals are ultimately responsible for the choices that they make, a huge responsibility is still, nevertheless, placed upon teachers and leaders (cf. James 3:1). Not enough people who have a voice within the Messianic movement, particularly within the One Torah/One Law sub-movement, have placed Yeshua’s work, His salvation, and the supernatural power of the gospel, at the center of their words and actions. The Torah or Pentateuch is, too frequently for some, more important than the Messiah Himself.

If we cannot understand how important it is to contemplate the gravity of the Messiah event for our own, individual selves—how will we be able to contemplate it on a larger scale for His corporate people? The gospel of salvation is certainly a message of individuals being redeemed from eternal punishment, and seeing them spiritually regenerated and set onto a path of sanctification and holiness. But, the good news is also a message of God’s Kingdom being restored, which is to culminate at the Messiah’s Second Coming. The Kingdom of God is composed of redeemed individuals—so any understanding of the corporate tasks and purposes the Lord would have the emerging Messianic movement accomplish, can only be preceded by individuals themselves placing the Messiah event at the center of their being! How much time and energy have been squandered by us, because we have failed to consider the imperatives of God’s mission, realized in the Messiah event? What do you have to take before the Lord in your next time of prayer and meditation with Him?

Make sure that you are a man or woman of faith, who recognizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) as the most important event in human history! As you do this, expect to see the Messianic movement refined into a significant spiritual force for good, as we approach our Lord’s return.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 13

[1] Consult the article “The Message of Exodus” by J.K. McKee, appearing in the Messianic Spring Holiday Helper.

[2] The technical Greek issues regarding Galatians 2:16; 3:21-22; Romans 3:21-22; Philippians 3:8-9; Ephesians 3:11-12 have been examined in the article “The Faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah,” appearing in The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee.

[3] Be sure to have read the article “The Last Sedar and Yeshua’s Passover Chronology” by J.K. McKee, appearing in the Messianic Spring Holiday Helper, for a review of the events surrounding Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Many useful thoughts and reflections are also offered by Derek Tidball, The Message of the Cross (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).

[4] Consult the exegesis paper on Matthew 5:17-19, “Has the Law Been Fulfilled?” by J.K. McKee, appearing in his book The New Testament Validates Torah.

[5] Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, 312.

[6] CHALOT, 378.

[7] For a further discussion, consult the relevant sections of the publication One Law for All, as well as Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel?, both by J.K. McKee.

[8] Notably, the word of Hebrews 7:18 was given with the impending destruction of the Second Temple in mind.

[9] Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 681.

[10] Consult the relevant sections of the article “Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah” by J.K. McKee.

[11] R.T. France, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 183.

[12] For further examination, consult the commentary Hebrews for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[13] From the authors’ own Wesleyan heritage, John Wesley would say on Colossians 2:14, “This was not properly our sins themselves (they were the debt), but their guilt and cry before God” (Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, 747).

[14] For a further examination, consult the commentary Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[15] For a further examination, consult the relevant sections of the commentaries Galatians for the Practical Messianic and Ephesians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[16] The issues of male circumcision and water immersion will be addressed in the forthcoming book Torah In the Balance, Volume II by J.K. McKee.

[17] LS, 798.

[18] BDAG, 998.

[19] “it has been accomplished” (Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, trans., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1990], 400).

[20] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, Vol 36 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 352 adds,

“After drinking the wine [or vinegar], Jesus uttered his last word known to the Evangelist, [tetelestai]. The rendering, ‘It is finished!’ conveys only half the meaning. For the verb [teleō] fundamentally denotes ‘to carry out’ the will of somebody, whether of oneself or another, and so to fulfill obligations or carry out religious act.”

[21] Grk. telos...nomou Christos.

-14-

The Significance of the Messiah Event

2005

J.K. McKee

How many of you, in your quest to become Torah observant, have been accused by Christian friends or family of being a “Pharisee”?[1]

How many of you have been told that you are being a hypocrite and should not only not be concerning yourself with God’s Torah, but you are falling into the same mistakes that others in the First Century Body of Messiah fell into, that the Apostle Paul countered in his epistles?

Having the accusation of being a “Pharisee” is one that is not only commonly used by some Christians against us as Messianic Believers, but has become integrated into the vernacular language of many Christians relating to any individual or group that is perceived as being legalistic and/or archaic in its approach to society and the Bible. It is perceived among many people that being “Pharisaical” is a status that no born again Believer should even try to attain to, because after all, were not the Pharisees the primary antagonists of Jesus Christ? Did not Yeshua have most of His conflicts with the Pharisees and the Pharisaical religious system? Did He not rebuke the Pharisees time and time again for their keeping of the Law?

The example that many readers see of the Pharisees in Scripture is exemplified well in Matthew 12:14: “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.”[2] Easton’s Bible Dictionary well-summarizes the thoughts of many Christians: “From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.”[3] Many Christians reading their Bibles, very seldom having any background information in First Century Judaism, fail to understand that the Pharisees were too broad of a group to be considered the “persistent enemies of our Lord.” NIDB validly points out, “the discriminating Bible student should bear in mind that not everything about every Pharisee was bad. It is perhaps not just to say that all Pharisees were self-righteous and hypocritical. Many Pharisees actually tried to promote true piety.”[4] Unfortunately, far too many Christians are in the dark about this, and it has caused some problems to erupt between them and Messianic Believers.

The key in being able to combat the claim that is often made against us as Messianic Believers—that we are Pharisees and are thus hypocritical, legalistic, and perhaps even opposed to the liberating gospel message of Messiah Yeshua—is to understand that the Pharisees of First Century Judaism were a very complex group of people. Just like the Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians of today, so were there different types and subsets of Pharisees, just as there were similarities among them. We have to put ourselves back into the First Century context of the Gospel writers, who would have assumed that their readership would know certain things about the Pharisees, that today many Christian pastors and Sunday school teachers are not informed about. (Or, at least choose to remain uninformed about by failing to consult modern Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries, and various commentaries which have an ample amount of information on the Pharisees, some of which we will be consulting in this article.)

It is important for us as Messianic Believers to have the appropriate background information in relation to First Century Judaism,[5] who the Pharisees were, what the Pharisees believed, how Yeshua interacted with them, and how the Apostle Paul was one of them. Is it true that the Pharisees were hypocritical, “evil people,” as is commonly believed in mainstream Christianity? Or, have many of us perhaps oversimplified things, and we need to look at the Pharisees as being composed of multiple sects—each of which existed under the broad umbrella as being “Pharisaical”—but had differing applications of the Scriptures? Keep this in mind as we examine what it means to be a Pharisee.

A Separated Group

The Hebrew term for Pharisee is Parush, meaning separatist. Its Greek transliteration of Pharisaios appears in the Apostolic Scriptures. TDNT remarks that it is “A common term in the NT and Josephus, usually in the plural, Pharisaíos transcribes an Aramaic word denoting ‘separated.’ The Hebrew equivalent, whose root can have both positive and negative nuances, is very rarer and does not cover all aspects of Pharisaism.”[6] The verb parash is a term that is used quite frequently in the Mishnah, Talmud, and other Rabbinical literature to refer to the concept of being separated. Jastrow defines it as “to go away, go aside, depart; to keep off.”[7]

Being separated (at least to one degree or another) is one of the principal emphases of the Torah, as God’s people are to be different from the world and resist assimilation to the sinful ways of the world (cf. Leviticus 11:45). Yeshua prayed to His Father, “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15), a theme which would have resonated with many ancient Pharisees.

The Pharisees arose as a religious sect during or immediately after the Hasmonean revolt of around 165-160 B.C.E., when Hellenization threatened the survival of the Jewish people. The Pharisaical sects rose up to preserve the validity of the Torah for the people, and the rituals that had preserved the remnant of Israel since their return from Babylonian captivity. The Pharisees highly emphasized the Torah commandments regarding purity, but more than anything else connected with the common people in a way that the aristocratic Sadducees, their dominant rivals who controlled the Temple and priesthood, were unable to do. The Pharisees were placed in a position as teachers. “Ceremonies originally part of the Temple cult were carried over to the home, and learned men of non-priestly descent began to play an important role in national religious affairs. While the priesthood exhausted itself in the round of Temple ritual, the Pharisees found their main function in teaching and preaching the law of God” (EJ).[8]

While the Pharisees arose as a response to Hellenism, they quickly became the primary teachers of the common people in the Land of Israel. From this environment arose the majority of their religious views and teachings concerning the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of their theological beliefs formalized as a response to the needs of those in Israel before and immediately following the period of the Maccabees. As Menahem Mansoor remarks, “Pharasaic theological doctrines were giving utterance to the hopes of the oppressed masses and affecting the entire life of the Jews. This hope was especially seen in doctrines which included belief in the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, reward and retribution in the life after death, the coming of the Messiah, and the existence of angels, and also divine foreknowledge along with man’s free choice of, and therefore responsibility for, his deeds.”[9] These beliefs, as you should no doubt be aware, are clearly espoused in the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) and were taught by Yeshua and His Disciples. Yeshua and His Disciples ministered and taught to almost the exact same audience as the Pharisees did—the oppressed masses who were in desperate need of a message of hope.

Important Theological Views of the Pharisees

The Pharisees had some distinct theological views which made them a unique group. While they advocated beliefs that any conservative, evangelical Christian would hold to today and would agree with, the Pharisees saw themselves primarily as teachers of the Torah or Law of Moses. Not only did the Pharisees see themselves as the proper expositors of the Torah, but they also believed in the validity of the Oral Torah or Oral Law. As EJ notes, they maintained “the validity of the Oral Law as well as of the Torah as the source of their religion.”[10] The Pharisees advocated that “The law must be understood according to the interpretation of the teachers who are endowed with God-given reason to do so.”[11]

While the validity of the Written Torah given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God was firmly believed by the Pharisees, so were the oral teachings of the Rabbis, which were also believed to be given by God to Moses and then passed down by word-of-mouth via the religious leadership (m.Avot 1:1). Much of this Oral Torah was used because the Pharisees “tried to adapt old codes to new conditions,”[12] meaning the changing religious conditions of the Jewish people living in the First Centuries B.C.E. and C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus explains that “the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers” (Antiquities of the Jews 13.297).[13]

The antagonists of the Pharisees were the Sadducees. While there is much written concerning the theology of the Pharisees in ancient Jewish literature, and by First Century voices such as Philo and Josephus, not much is written concerning the Sadducees. The Sadducees are well-known in the Gospel accounts for not believing in the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27), and Acts 23:8 tells us more fully, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.” The Jewish Study Bible comments that “They held to a strict application of Torah and to maintain order to continue the Temple practices without interference, the Sadducees were apparently willing to collaborate with the occupying Roman power to some extent, including accepting Roman interference in the choice of high priest.”[14]

The Sadducees were, for the most part, in league with the Roman occupiers of the Land of Israel. They did not have a great amount of influence over the common people, who viewed them as collaborators with Rome. “There is no record of a Sadducee being admitted into the Christian church. According to Josephus (Antiq. 20.9.1), they were responsible for the death of James, the brother of the Lord. With the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Sadduccean party disappeared” (NIDB).[15]

The Pharisees, in contrast to the Sadducees, were quite conservative in their theology, believing that the whole of the Hebrew Tanach was valid Scripture. Ron Moseley comments in his book Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church that there appear to be many similarities between the Pharisees and the Puritans who settled early colonial America. He remarks that shared characteristics between them “include an emphasis on self-discipline, the determination not to remove their standards, the desire for learning, the pursuit of freedom, the mixture of idealism and realism, which was often confused with hypocrisy, the fluctuating affections of love and hate, which were often aimed at those who opposed their views, and the total devotion to a simple life-style.”[16]

If we understand the Pharisees as a distinct group, advocating a distinct religious ideology, we can see that they are misunderstood by many Christians who have little background knowledge of who they actually were. The Pharisees arose out of an environment that resisted assimilation to the world’s ways, and their movement emphasized separation via God’s Torah and its ritual commandments. They advocated the message of the Hebrew Scriptures: the redemption of Israel and the judgment of Israel’s enemies. They believed in the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment on sinners. They believed in angels, demons, and a combination of free will and predestination. They respected tradition as it bound the Jewish people together as a society. And, surprisingly, a few might have participated in a sort of “missionary evangelism,” based on Scripture texts such as Isaiah 2:20 and Jeremiah 16:19:

“In that day men will cast away to the moles and the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship” (Isaiah 2:20).

“O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, and my refuge in the day of distress, to You the nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, ‘Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, futility and things of no profit’” (Jeremiah 16:19).

These prophecies formed the basis of Pharisaical “missionary evangelism,” whereby steps were taken by the Pharisees to go out into the nations and make converts. These words both predict that the nations will acknowledge the God of Israel, and as Moseley remarks, “the Pharisees engaged in aggressive and effective evangelism for three hundred years, especially during the time of Christ.”[17] Why were there many Jewish communities outside the Land of Israel in the First Century in such foreign areas such as Northern Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome? One major reason that there were Jewish synagogues in these distant locations was often because they were planted there by Pharisees, to convert the masses in anticipation of the eschaton, where all nations would acknowledge the God of Israel.

When understanding these important theological views of the Pharisees, why do many Christians seem to have an unbalanced view of who the Pharisees were? Is this unbalanced view rooted in a certain tradition, a particular contemporary Christian culture, or simply being ignorant and uninformed of who the Pharisees were within First Century Judaism? Do you think that conservative evangelical Christians today would have their beliefs align more with the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection of the dead, angels, demons, an afterlife, and other foundational elements of the faith—or with the Sadducees who did not believe in any of these things?

Mansoor perhaps says it best in his statement, “Pharisaic doctrines have more in common with those of Christianity than is supposed, having prepared the ground for Christianity with such concepts as Messianism, the popularization of monotheism and apocalypticism, and with such beliefs as life after death, resurrection of the dead, immortality, and angels.”[18]

Perhaps Christians have more in common with the Pharisees than they are willing to see. If indeed so, how should this change our perspective of the Pharisees in the Apostolic Scriptures, their relation to Yeshua and the Apostle Paul, and how we are to practice our faith as Messianic Believers today?

The Different Sects of the Pharisees

One thing that has caused a substantial amount of confusion among many in Christianity today, and their failure to see the Pharisees as actually holding to the same principal doctrines and beliefs that they do, is they often refer to them as that: “the Pharisees.” The Pharisees, although the dominant party in the Sanhedrin, the religious-political council which controlled the internal affairs of First Century Israel in which Yeshua and His early followers lived, were not just a political party. The Pharisees were a distinct religious group within First Century Judaism, and like all branches of Judaism and Christianity today, there were sects and sub-sects of Pharisees which advocated different views and interpretations of the Torah. While there were commonly shared beliefs among all the Pharisees, to say that all Pharisees believed exactly the same way would be to say that all members of a particular denomination of Protestantism or branch of Judaism today believe exactly the same way.

During the time of Yeshua, two distinct groups of Pharisees rose up in the Land of Israel, which by-and-large had differing persuasions in their handling of the Torah and the halachah, meaning how the Torah was to be walked out in daily life. These two schools were the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. They are named after their respective founders, Rabbi Hillel (unknown B.C.E.-unknown C.E.) and Rabbi Shammai (50 B.C.E.-30 C.E.). The individuals themselves may or may not have been alive during the teaching ministry of Yeshua, but their students certainly were. The Schools of Hillel and Shammai, while both being groups of Pharisees, held to different points of view with how the Torah was to be applied, with one being more liberal than the other. These schools existed “until the second generation after the destruction of the Second Temple., i.e., until the beginning of the second century C.E.” (EJ).[19] Knowing this is absolutely imperative when we see the Pharisees mentioned in the Apostolic Scriptures, because we have to ask ourselves the question of what Pharisees are being referred to: Hillites or Shammaites? This requires us to have the proper background knowledge relating to these groups so we do not misunderstand Yeshua’s interaction with the Pharisees, His criticisms of them, and the beliefs of the First Century ekklēsia.

Generally speaking, the School of Hillel was founded to be more liberal and lenient in matters of the Torah than the School of Shammai. As Shmuel Safrai notes, “Tannaitic tradition emphasizes that Bet Shammai adopted the stricter, Bet Hillel the more lenient view….Many scholars have sought to define the basic principles underlying the divergences between the two schools. The generally accepted explanation is that they reflect the individual traits of their founders, of Hillel who was gentle and kind, and of Shammai who was stern and short-tempered.”[20] In regard to interpretation of the Torah, “Bet Shammai tends in the former to the plain and sometimes even to the narrow, literal interpretation of a verse, as opposed to the wider significance assigned by Bet Hillel.”[21] This is important to keep in mind when seeing Yeshua’s interactions with the Pharisees, and His criticisms of them keeping the Torah. Was He criticizing the Pharisees in general, or a specific interpretation and application espoused by Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai? This needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis in the Gospels.

Very little is known about Shammai the man, aside from the teachings espoused by those who followed his School. Moshe David Herr remarks, “In general Bet Shammai took up a stringent attitude….Many of Shammai’s halakhot appear to be based on the literal interpretation of the biblical text…most of which deal with the laws of levitical cleanness and uncleanness.”[22] Some of these sorts of rigid views may extend to the Sabbath, the dietary laws, and emphasizing ritual over spiritual substance. Concerning all the Torah issues that Shammai himself made rulings on, Herr does note that he “did not always adopt a stringent line, and of some 20 halakhot transmitted in his name, he adopts a stringent view in about two-thirds of the cases.”[23] Shammai’s motto is perhaps summed up well in his statement recorded in the Pirkei Avot or Sayings of the Fathers: “Make your learning of Torah a fixed obligation. Say little and do much. Greet everybody cheerfully” (m.Avot 1:15).[24] This seems to reveal that Beit Shammai was more concerned about its deed than its word. Consequently, some members of Beit Shammai may have been more concerned about being seen, as opposed to doing.

Beit Hillel was the more popular of the two schools of Pharisees. Hillel haZaken, as he is commonly called, is considered in Judaism to be “the greatest of the sages of the Second Temple period,” being “described as a man of great humility…[who] set before himself the principle of bringing men closer to the Torah.”(EJ).[25] He was a reformer who sought to improve the lives of Jewish people, and many of Hillel’s sayings which emphasize morality, treating others with kindness and respect—and are indeed spiritually edifying—are contained in the Rabbinical writings of the Mishnah and Talmud. As the Pirkei Avot attest of Hillel’s primary sayings, “Be disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near to the Torah” (m.Avot 1:12).[26] This saying emphasizes love and peace, key concepts that none of us should be opposed to.

Regarding the School of Hillel’s interpretation of the Torah, Beit Hillel was “inclined most often to a liberal rather than a conservative interpretation of the demands of the law” (IDB),[27] in that the spirit of the Torah or its essence, should be emphasized above the Torah’s legal demands. J. Goldin notes that “The sources delight in repeating a number of anecdotes, all of them contrasting the proverbial patience of Hillel with the impatience and irascibility of Shammai, the most famous anecdote being the one of the proselyte who wanted to learn the whole Torah while standing on one foot. After Shammai had rebuffed him, the proselyte came to Hillel. ‘What is hateful to thee do not do to thy fellowman,’ Hillel told him; ‘this is the whole Torah; all else is commentary. Now go learn that!’”[28] In the end, the School of Hillel became the more popular group among the Pharisees. The above account is summarized in the Talmud as, “Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority: A person always should be humble, like Hillel the Elder, and not captious, like Shammai the Elder” (b.Shabbat 31a).[29] This attests to the fact that in the end, theologically, the School of Hillel often wins out.

It is probable that Hillel was probably deceased by the time that Yeshua the Messiah began His ministry, but Hillel’s followers were most certainly still alive. You can probably already see a few parallels between Hillel’s teachings and those of Yeshua, just from cursory memory. This is not to say that Hillel’s teachings are those of Yeshua’s, or vice versa, but it is to say that Yeshua did very much teach like a Jewish Rabbi of His time. When He spoke to the Pharisees about applications of Torah commandments, and seemingly had strong disagreements about them, He may very well have entered into internal debates between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Certainly, as Yeshua dealt with people with a fallen sin nature, there was legalism present in both Hillelites and Shammaites, so Yeshua could just as well be criticizing followers of Hillel as opposed to just followers of Shammai. But let us not assume that the Messiah is criticizing all Pharisees without having the appropriate background information.

Because Pharisaical theology profoundly impacted the theology of the First Century ekklēsia, it is important for us to understand that there were different types of Pharisees in the milieu of First Century Judaism. Many Christians have failed to consider this in their examinations of the Gospels, and in the corrections that Yeshua issued to the Pharisees. When we examine various issues related to Torah observance, and what has historically been interpreted by Christian theologians as a rebuke by Yeshua of the Torah—as opposed to Torah application—it will be very important for us to remember the different types of Pharisees that existed in His day.[30]

What Yeshua Said to Certain Pharisees

In spite of the reality that many Christians have failed to examine Yeshua’s words to the Pharisees with the correct background information, by understanding that the Pharisees were dominated by the Schools of Hillel and Shammai in First Century Judaism, and the Messiah is often criticizing the Torah application of their followers (as opposed to the basic tenets of Pharisaical theology)—many people in the Messianic community likewise have a negative view of the Pharisees. Much of this is rooted in failing to examine the Gospels objectively, and perhaps even in a desire not to follow Pharisaical interpretations of the Torah, which are viewed as the primogenitors of a modern-day Orthodox Judaism that rejects Yeshua. There is also substantial misunderstanding not only in mainstream Christianity, but also in the Messianic movement, regarding Matthew 23. Various editions of the NASB, for example, have as a heading for vs. 1-12: “Pharisaism Exposed.”[31] This chapter of Scripture is often interpreted as a definitive rebuke of the Pharisees, their doctrines, and their practices. In actuality, though, Yeshua’s words in Matthew 23 are a warning to His followers not to follow the hypocritical ways and attitudes of the Pharisaical leadership of His day—not the basic tenets of their theology.

To this end, BKCNT explains that “The hypocrisy and unbelief of the nation’s religious leaders, evidenced in chapter 23, prompted a strong message from Jesus. He turned to the crowds and to His disciples, who were in the temple listening to His debates with the various religious leaders. He warned them about their teachings saying that their authority was to be recognized (they sit in Moses’ seat, i.e., they teach the Law), but their practices, being hypocritical, should not be followed.”[32]

Before rebuking the Pharisaical leadership, Yeshua recognizes the position of authority that they have been given. The Messiah says, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (Matthew 23:2-3). This verse is confusing for many people, because it would indeed seem that Yeshua is validating the Pharisees’ position. Yeshua tells His followers, “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do” (RSV). Some in Messianic Judaism, in particular, believe that Yeshua says that we are to follow all of the teachings of the Pharisees, which would extend to holding the Oral Torah on the level of Scripture, and thus we must be subject today to Orthodox Jewish authorities. But this is not what Yeshua says, as He no more expects blind obedience to all Pharisaical rulings than Paul expected the Romans to follow the government when it was in grievous error (cf. Romans 13). The Biblical text in Matthew 23 uses particularization, meaning that these introductory statements by Yeshua are then followed and explained with how His followers were not to emulate certain Pharisaical attitudes.

Yeshua admonishes His followers that they are to take their theological lead from the Pharisees, and this is clearly demonstrated by the beliefs of the early Believers in Yeshua, compared to the theology of the Pharisees. Moseley notes that “Jesus probably held to the beliefs of the fundamentalist Pharisees, although not to all the ‘fences’ that were added. It was Jesus who exhorted the disciples to do what the Pharisees taught.”[33]

But what are some specific examples of where Yeshua warns His followers not to be like the Pharisees, or at least their religious leadership? After identifying the Pharisees as sitting in the seat of Moses in Matthew 23, in vs. 4-12 He lists instances where these Pharisees in charge have come up short:

“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men” (Matthew 23:4-7).

Notice what Yeshua first says about the Pharisees, indicating for His listeners the reasons why He is rebuking them: “Everything they do is done for men to see” (NIV). While these Pharisees in leadership want their piety or religiosity to be seen by others, they are unwilling to physically do the hard labor or make the commitment that is required in the Torah to serve others. Yeshua specifically condemns them for the large size of their phylacteries and their tzit-tzits or fringes—because they want to demonstrate their “godliness” before everyone. In v. 6 Yeshua says that “they love also the chief couches in the supper” (YLT), and in v. 7 says that they love “salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men” (RSV).

A typical Sunday school teacher, with little or no knowledge of First Century Judaism, would immediately assume that while Yeshua is criticizing all of the Pharisees for their actions, He is also condemning the Torah practices that they are following. But is Yeshua actually condemning God’s Torah, or the attitude in which the Pharisaical leadership here is practicing it? Many have assumed, from v. 5 for example, that Yeshua condemns the practice of wrapping tefillin and wearing tzit-tzityot. But He is not. He is condemning how the Pharisees here are enlarging the size of them so as to be noticed by others.[34] The Ryrie Study Bible confirms this, noting, “Christ criticizes not the custom itself but the spirit that corrupted it.”[35]

Yeshua’s comments criticizing the attitudes of the Pharisees continue in vs. 8-12: “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Messiah. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”

Yeshua tells His Disciples how the leadership of the Pharisees has been corrupted. With a surface reading of the text, He seems to say that His followers are not to call themselves rabbi, or father, or even leader. Many have interpreted this as meaning that titles such as “Rabbi” or positions even as “leader” in the Messianic movement should not exist. But what is the context of Yeshua saying these words? Yeshua is saying these words in the context of speaking about the hypocrisy of these Pharisees in leadership, and He connects not being called rabbi, or father, or leader with this hypocrisy. This is because these Pharisees here no doubt view themselves as being the only people “worthy,” if you will, of having these sorts of positions in the eyes of everyone else—who, as Yeshua notes in v. 4, they are unwilling to move to serve. I do not believe Yeshua is speaking against titles such as “rabbi” or “leader” or even “pastor,” but rather is speaking against calling oneself by these titles if a person is unwilling or unable to properly fulfill the requirements that these offices demand.[36]

The rest of Matthew 23 goes on and details specific examples that Yeshua warns His followers about, and how the Pharisaical leadership will be judged by God. Yeshua demonstrates by His words how they have failed, as teachers of the Torah, to properly follow it. These rabbis and leaders have instead preferred to focus on everyone watching their outward observances, when their attitudes and motivations are not right. Not surprisingly, we have many people today who are seeking to keep the Torah, not because they want to necessarily obey God out of love for Him as a part of the sanctification process, but because they want to be seen by others.

Even though Yeshua criticizes the leadership of the Pharisees here—those who have seated themselves in the chair of Moses and who make authoritative declarations concerning its laws—of all the theological groups that existed in the realm of First Century Judaism, which one did Yeshua most closely align with? Have centuries of Christian Bible teaching, while correctly recognizing that we are not to be hypocritical like the Pharisees rebuked in Matthew 23, failed to recognize that in spite of these rebukes, Yeshua’s theology is more Pharisaical than any other of the groups that existed? Have we as the Body of Messiah honestly asked ourselves the question why Yeshua targeted these Pharisees for such a strict rebuke? Why does it appear in the Gospels as if the Pharisees are the primary antagonists of our Lord? Is it perhaps because the reason why Yeshua is so direct with the Pharisees is because He was indeed one of them? Would you not be the hardest on members of your own faith community—who you know should know better—rebuking them for doing things that they should realize are unacceptable in the eyes of God?[37]

Consider the words of Jacob Neusner in his book The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism, relating some of the parallels between Yeshua’s teachings and the contemporary Rabbis of His time:

“[T]he single most important figure in the chain of tradition from Sinai onward to the sages who created the Mishnah is Hillel, a sage who flourished about the same time as Jesus and to whom is attributed a statement strikingly like the Golden Rule: ‘What is hateful to yourself, do not do to anyone else. That is the whole of the Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go learn.’ Both the teaching of Hillel and that of Jesus on the Golden Rule—‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’—state in other language the commandment of the Torah at Leviticus 19:18: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Many great sages of Judaism have maintained that that statement summarizes the whole of Judaism.”[38]

Much of his book is written with the understanding that it will be read by many Christians, who need to see a connection between the teachings of the Rabbis and Yeshua the Messiah. Here, Neusner basically connects Yeshua’s teachings with those of Rabbi Hillel. Hillel emphasized concepts that we generally attribute to being part of the “golden rule,” which is to love one’s neighbor, something firmly rooted in the Torah of Moses. The Messiah says, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Treating others morally with respect was a key emphasis of Rabbi Hillel, and is most certainly a key emphasis in the teachings of our Lord. Moseley validly states, “The teachings of Jesus had more in common with the teachings of the Pharisees, especially the school of Hillel, than any other group of His time.”[39]

Sadly, too many of us have viewed the Pharisees in a negative light, and we have failed to see Yeshua’s rebuke of the Pharisees as being a natural reaction of Him rebuking those with whom He shared many of the same beliefs. Many of Yeshua’s early followers were Pharisees, and there are examples from the Apostolic Writings where many of the Pharisees were good people who earnestly strived to serve the God of Israel. Moseley summarizes, “Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea…believed in Jesus and endeavored to follow Him (John 7:50, 19:39 and Mark 15:43). In Acts 5 we find Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul, arguing for tolerance toward the Christians. On at least one occasion, some Pharisees warned Jesus of an attempt on His life, and others are seen showing hospitality to the Lord (Luke 13:31, 7:36, 11:37 and 14:1).”[40] We need to keep all of these facts in mind as we read the Gospels and examine them for who Yeshua is as a First Century Jewish Rabbi, and not just our Lord and Savior.

True Pauline Theology

Many Christians and even Messianics today are uninformed about the fact that many Jewish Bible teachers are aware that Jesus was a Jew, and He taught as a First Century Jewish Rabbi. Such Jewish teachers recognize the fact that Yeshua did not speak against the Torah, but rather debated with the Pharisees just as they debated among themselves. Their issue, if you will, over the Messiahship of Yeshua is not with Yeshua, but is often with the Apostle Paul and what he seemingly taught (or what the Church at large has attributed to him teaching). It is not uncommon to hear that such Jews believe that Paul was the founder of Christianity, because they believe that Paul in his letters speaks against the Torah and its commandments. But does Paul speak against the Torah? Was Paul the founder of “Christianity,” as some try to insinuate?

The challenge that many have when seeing Yeshua as a First Century Jewish Rabbi, but then seeing the letters of Paul, is that they fail to interpret Paul’s words in light of the Messiah’s words. Instead, some would prefer to interpret the Messiah’s words in light of Paul’s words. This, most notably, extends to how his Greek letters are translated into English, as they are most often translated with an anti-Torah bias.[41] Even though Yeshua says in Matthew 5:17-19 that He came to “fulfill the Torah,” Paul in contrast says in Romans 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the law,” meaning that He terminates it. If you examine Scripture from the hermeneutic that Paul’s words are primary to Yeshua’s words, then the understanding of “Christ is the end,” or termination, of the Law of Moses, will be read into the text of Matthew 5, so that by “fulfilling” the Torah Yeshua is abolishing it.

This is a flawed way of examining the Scriptures, and is a way that even the Apostle Paul would not agree with. Paul himself says, “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Paul wrote Timothy that if anyone “does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing” (NIV). Paul’s own hermeneutic was that Yeshua’s words stand first.

Yeshua says that He came to fulfill the Torah, meaning live it out to its perfect extent for us, and that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18, RSV), and all has certainly not been accomplished.[42] The Apostle Paul’s words must be interpreted, and indeed translated, from this point of view. When examining Romans 10:4 and the Greek word telos, most commonly rendered as “end,” we see that it also can mean “outcome, result, goal, aim, fulfillment” (CGEDNT),[43] and it can be validly translated as “Christ is the goal of the Law,”[44] meaning that the Torah is to point to Him. This is only one of several significant examples (also, Ephesians 2:14-15) of where Paul’s words have been mistranslated from the Greek into English, so as to be perceived as having an anti-Torah perspective, when often he is only clarifying for us the position of the Torah in the life of a born again Believer maturing in faith, placing one’s primary attention upon the God who sent His Son as salvation.

If Paul’s words are to be interpreted in light of Yeshua’s words, and if Yeshua upholds the Torah, then what does this tell us about Paul’s theology and the perspective from which he writes? Paul writes in Philippians 3:5 that he was “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee.” He clearly identifies himself as being a Jew of the Southern Kingdom that returned from exile, in fact a Benjamite, who was a Hebrew of Hebrews and who kept the Torah as a Pharisee. Yet, many Christian theologians, because of his next words, say that he considered these things to be of no effect to him at all. Paul writes,

“[A]s to zeal, a persecutor of the [assembly]; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Messiah” (Philippians 3:6-7).

Paul’s words of “[I] count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Philippians 3:8, KJV), are commonly thought that he does not have any regard for his Pharisaical ways or theology any more. However, in these verses in Philippians, Paul is reflecting on his life as a Pharisee and how he persecuted the early Believers in the Messiah, and such a life he considers to be all but “refuse” (RSV) in light of knowing Yeshua as His Lord and Savior and being conformed to His image (Romans 8:29). This is the same reflection any born again Believer should make concerning his or her previous life prior to salvation.[45] But should we all of a sudden think that he does not identify with the Pharisees in any capacity by these remarks, and has turned his back on their theology?

One of the most important scenes in the Bible, as it relates to the beliefs and the theology of the Apostle Paul, is when he stands before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23. In Acts 23:1-7, Paul is accused of crimes before the Sanhedrin, and he is forced to defend himself pertaining to why he believes in Yeshua and His resurrection:

“Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, ‘Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.’ The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, ‘God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?’ But the bystanders said, ‘Do you revile God's high priest?’ And Paul said, ‘I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, “YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE [Exodus 22:28].”’ But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, ‘Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!’ As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.”

Notice that Paul accuses the high priest Ananias, “You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” (NIV). Those sitting in the court ask Paul why he is rebuking the high priest, and indicating that he did not know that Ananias was the high priest, he apologizes by quoting Exodus 22:28, “You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people,” indicating his obedience to the Torah. Paul concedes that he was in error not to give the high priest respect, but then is forced to proclaim before the Sanhedrin the Hebrew words ani P’rush, ben Perushim, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees!”[46] The Greek text of Acts 23:6 records him as saying egō Pharisaios eimi, “I myself a Pharisee am.” The verb eimi appears in the present active indicative tense, meaning that Paul considered himself a Pharisee right then—not just at some previous point in time. Why would Paul make these statements before the Sanhedrin if he had abandoned all things that made him a Pharisee?

David H. Stern remarks in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that “Though a Messianic Jew for some twenty years, Sha’ul still considers himself a Pharisee.”[47] The Apostle Paul considered himself a Pharisee long after his conversion of faith, very clearly because he identified himself with the theology of the Pharisees, here in the context of believing in the resurrection of the dead. He asks those assembled why he is even on trial, because the Pharisees gathered believed in the resurrection of the dead just as he did. As BKCNT validly notes, “By using this clever tactic, Paul divided his enemy. Amazingly the Pharisees defended Paul, a fellow Pharisee.”[48]

Paul would not have been able to say “I am a Pharisee” without meaning that he followed Pharisaical doctrines and beliefs. He certainly would not have been able to say such a statement if he believed that the Torah were invalidated through the work of Yeshua on the cross. He could have easily said, “I was a Pharisee, but still believe in the resurrection of the dead.” Instead, he said “I am a Pharisee, and believe in the resurrection of the dead.” How much Christian (mis)understanding of Paul has failed to consider Paul as a Pharisee? How much Messianic (mis)understanding today has failed to consider Paul as a Pharisee, who respected the Rabbis who taught him?

Before being taken before the Sanhedrin, Paul addressed a crowd in Jerusalem in Hebrew with the statements, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today” (Acts 22:3). He says that “Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today” (NIV). How many people when reading this even know who Gamaliel was?

Gamaliel was the “grandson of Hillel and first of only seven rabbis to be given the title of Rabban” (NIDB).[49] He is perhaps most widely known for his statement concerning the early Believers in Acts 5:38: “So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown.” Gamaliel’s influence over the Sanhedrin seems to indicate that he favored a more lenient view to the Believers in Yeshua, in some ways favoring them over the Sadducees. Gamaliel was so highly valued in First Century Judaism that the Talmud says of him, “The rabbis taught: From the days of Moses until Rabban Gamaliel, they did not study Torah [in any posture] other than standing. After Rabban Gamaliel died, an infirmity descended into the world, and they used to study Torah sitting. And that is as is taught: After Rabban Gamaliel died, the honor of Torah was lost” (b.Megillah 21a).[50]

By mentioning Gamaliel, the question can be made whether Paul is fully identifying with his teachings and perspective of the Torah, because after all he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and was not a native to the city of Jerusalem, even though having been trained by Gamaliel. Many, especially in Christianity, do not want to view Paul as being a Pharisee at all, while there are others in the Messianic movement who attempt to synthesize his theology with all forms of Orthodox Judaism today. Bruce Chilton observes that “Comparison with rabbinic sources suggests that Paul should not be seen preeminently as a rabbi in the mode of the Pharisees in Jerusalem…He was rather a provincial hanger-on of the movement, who turned a zeal for the Temple and purity into a zeal for the oral law” (ABD).[51]

A balanced view of Paul will likely reveal that while being trained in Jerusalem by Gamaliel, he still maintained himself as a Jew being born in the Diaspora, as the Lord did commission him to be the Apostle to the nations (Romans 11:13). Those of the School of Hillel were notably trained in not only Torah study, but also the Greek language and philosophy, as they would often be the ones to interact with the Roman government (b.Sotah 49b). Having been trained as a Pharisee and being a teacher, Paul never separated himself from the Pharisaical theologies of his day, which would have included him believing in the validity of the Torah.[52] On the contrary, Paul appears to have been given the best education to be the Apostle to the nations!

Perhaps we may wonder why the Apostle Paul was chosen by Yeshua as being the Apostle to the nations. Yeshua criticized the leaders of the Pharisees for their techniques of going out and making proselytes, rebuking them with the words, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matthew 23:15). By the time Yeshua spoke these words, the intent of going out and making converts was not necessarily with the purpose of bringing all nations to the knowledge of the One True God, but with the purpose of being able to make converts so that the religious leadership could boast (cf. Galatians 6:13). However, the Pharisees who first went out to make converts in the Greek and Roman world did so with the expressed intent to take the knowledge of the One True God, so that all nations might be saved.

M.H. Pope notes, “From the first the Jews in Rome exhibited such an aggressive spirit of proselytism that they were charged with seeking to infect the Romans with their cult, and the government expelled the chief propagandists from the city in 139 B.C. In the early decades of the first century B.C., considerable numbers of Jews were in Rome and other cities of Italy, as well as in the farthest reaches of the Empire” (IDB).[53]

Paul was in a unique position, having received Rabbinical training from Gamaliel, and being a Roman citizen (cf. Acts 22:28). Part of Paul’s training would have included the strong belief that it was the job of the Jewish people to go out into the world and make converts of all the nations. Yeshua called out Paul not just because he was a Roman citizen with the ability to traverse the Empire, but because he was a Pharisee who was trained with this key concept. Paul’s theology in his epistles does not deviate from the Pharisaical norms, including Torah observance, but he does always keep in mind his audience and who they are when he writes to them and visits them in person. The Messianic community would do well in its Pauline studies to seriously examine Paul for who he is as a Pharisee, and in its application of the Torah to look at things through a (moderate) Pauline-Pharisaical lens.[54]

Modern-Day Pharisees Versus Modern-Day Hypocrites

There exist some major problems in the Messianic community today as it relates to the Pharisees. One of these problems exists in the fact that being a Pharisee, as defined by many modern English dictionaries, is that it means “a self-righteous, hypocritical person,”[55] as exhibited by the example of some of the Pharisees that Yeshua condemned. Yet at the same time the original meaning of the Hebrew word P’rush was one who was to be separated, and being separated from the world is a key concept exemplified in the Torah, and indeed all of Scripture. Secondly, a problem exists in relation to the Pharisees rooted in what is often perceived as being Yeshua’s condemnation of all of them, as opposed to just some of them, in that there are Messianics who want nothing to do with any Pharisaical doctrines or theologies or lifestyle practices, when in fact they are clearly evident in the teachings of Messiah Yeshua and the Apostle Paul.

How do we avoid being perceived as hypocrites? How do we practice our faith in the way Yeshua and Paul would have, consistent with the teachings of the Pharisees, yet where the Pharisees might (seriously) contradict Scripture, adhering to Scripture?

One of the claims that is often made against the Pharisees in the Messianic movement today is their adherence, or sometimes strict adherence, to the Oral Torah or the Oral Law. There are many Messianics who do not want anything to do with the writings of the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, etc., viewing them as containing errant theologies and teachings contrary to those of the Written Torah. They believe that it is in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”[56]

The Sadducees fully rejected what is referred to as the Oral Torah, and they only accepted the Written Torah or the Pentateuch, Genesis-Deuteronomy, as being authoritative Scripture. They rejected the Prophets and the Writings as canon. Their beliefs do not mimic those of the early Believers in Yeshua whose theology was rooted in Pharisaism.

While the Sadducees died out when the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. by the Romans, and the Pharisees of the School of Hillel predominately helped formulate what we now call Orthodox Judaism today, the call of the Sadducees was raised in the Eighth Century C.E. by some Jews in Babylon with the founding of the Karaite movement. As the Jewish Study Bible notes, they were “the theological movement in Judaism dating from Babylonia in the 8th century C.E. Karaites claimed to be restoring an original form of Judaism from the Second Temple period, and were opposed by the rabbis of their time.”[57] The reason that they were opposed is because their “practices differed in various ways from rabbinic norms”[58] which were rooted in Pharisaism. Because of the rejection by the Karaites of the Oral Torah, some Messianics today are beginning to adhere to, or already do adhere to, Karaite applications of Torah commandments (notably, a different calendar than the one followed in mainstream Judaism). They do this because they feel that Pharisaical Judaism violated the Torah by adding the “Oral Law.”

It is a fact that in Orthodox Judaism today, the Oral Torah is considered as authoritative as the Written Torah. It is considered to be just as much Scripture for Orthodox Jews as rulings of the pope from the Vatican are to be considered infallible for Roman Catholics. It is believed in Orthodox Judaism today that the Oral Torah was given alongside of the Written Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, and with the formation of Judaism as a religion without it, the Oral Torah was transcribed in approximately 220 C.E. in the form of the Mishnah. By 470 C.E. Rabbinical discussions on the Mishnah had been written down into what we know as the Talmud. The Mishnah and the Talmud form the basis of what we now commonly call the “Oral Torah.”[59]

If any of you examines the Oral Torah, you are going to see a mishmash of discussions, legal rulings, and debates not unlike any court proceeding you might see today. You are going to see contradictions between it and the pages of the Bible. But does this mean that none of it is valuable?  Do we just throw it all out and disclude it from theological conversation? Karaites and others would believe so. But what was the purpose of any oral instruction? It does not make sense for God to have given Moses the commandments on Mount Sinai and not tell him how they are to be fulfilled. As the Jewish Study Bible observes, “The oral law was…as its name suggests, originally transmitted orally alongside the Torah, as the authoritative interpretation of the Torah.”[60] It also indicates that “it was committed to writing by the Rabbis, in stages, in the first millennium C.E.”[61]

Within the Torah there is an important stipulation that needs to be considered by us, especially when divisive issues face God's people. Deuteronomy 17:10-11 gives a significant degree of authority to the religious leaders, in fact specifying, “According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left.” The Hebrew clause al-pi ha’Torah means “according to (the) mouth (of) the torah,” indicating an oral, standing ruling, to be followed. This directive within the Written Torah itself indicates that we cannot easily cast aside—especially not haphazardly or summarily—the rulings of the Jewish religious authorities. They at least have to be consulted, and put to the edification test of Philippians 4:8.

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee, writes several times in his epistles that he delivered several traditions to his listeners. He tells the Thessalonicans, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). In 1 Corinthians 11:2, he says, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” The Greek word paradosis specifically pertains to “tradition, of teachings, commandments, narratives et al.,” and can refer to “the tradition of the rabbis” (BDAG).[62] Whether some people like it or not, Paul’s words are clear that he probably taught some Rabbinical traditions or disciplines to his listeners. And, whether we are able to admit it to ourselves or not, the religious tradition in which we have been raised—be it Jewish or Christian—does impact how we look at the Bible and practice our faith. This tradition need not at all be something that is always negative.

I personally believe that Moses was given some oral instructions by God at Mount Sinai regarding how many of the commandments of the Torah were to be kept. These oral instructions would have been passed down generation to generation by word of mouth. However, because they were not written down, it would have been very easy to add things to the tradition. Over time, explanations that were originally given to Moses orally could be exaggerated by the Rabbis. Some of this may have not been done intentionally, but some of it could have been done intentionally, and/or various parts of these oral understandings could have been embellished. Much like our modern-day game of telephone, where someone is told a message and then each player repeats it to the next player—and often the final message is much different than the original message—so could the Oral Torah have been transmitted. This does not make the concept of God’s giving Moses oral explanations invalid, but it does mean that the Oral Torah contained in the Mishnah and Talmud cannot be considered authoritative Scripture. It means that it can be considered commentary that contains explanations of how the Torah’s commandments can be kept, but not how they must necessarily be kept.

Should we as Messianic Believers be Pharisaical, meaning that our theology and practice should be closest to those of the Pharisees than any of the other sects of First Century Judaism? I believe so. I am convinced based on a reading of the Gospels and the writings of the Apostle Paul that what we may call today “Messianic faith” is rooted in the basic theological tenets of the Pharisees. The Pharisees respected Moses, respected tradition, they wanted to be separated from the world—but they also wanted all the world to know of the good news of the God of Israel. The Pharisees in the Gospels are often accused, however, of having the problem of being hypocritical.

Yeshua’s ultimate problem with the Pharisaical leaders was that they did not pay attention to the major thrusts of the Torah, which dealt with how one conducted himself in society. He says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23:23). How many of us fall into the same trap today of believing that since we as Messianics are practicing things like keeping Shabbat, the appointed times, the dietary laws, wearing tzit-tzits, etc., that it is unimportant to be concerned about social justice or regard for how we treat our fellow human beings? How many of us are not concerned with how we treat other people, be they other Messianics (especially new ones) or our Jewish or even our Christian brethren? How many of us understand Yeshua’s rebuke here for what it truly was, and how it extends to today?

Craig S. Keener notes in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew what Yeshua was no doubt really saying to these Pharisees. He remarks, “In today’s terms, Jesus was thundering against many popular preachers and people who seemed to be living holy lives—because they were practicing human religion rather than serving God with purified hearts….I suspect that much of what passes for Christianity today is little more than human religion with the name of Jesus tacked onto it, because like most of the religion of Jesus’ contemporaries, it has failed to transform its followers into Christ’s servants passionately devoted to his mission in the world. When rightly understood, Jesus’ woes may strike too close to home for comfort.”[63]

Certainly, not all Pharisees in the First Century were just practicing outward religion, just like not all in Jewish synagogues or Christian churches today, or even Messianic congregations, are practicing outward religion. Many are very sincere about their faith and are earnestly seeking God with all their hearts. As Messianic Believers today, as our faith community grows and matures, we have to understand where we are theologically and spiritually. Theologically and doctrinally speaking, we want to be Pharisees. We do not want to be Sadducees or Karaites. Spiritually speaking, we want to be like Yeshua, serving the Body of Believers without complaint, and seeking to transform other people through our example of faith. We want to follow the Golden Rule, which was in fact taught by the Pharisaical School of Hillel, treating other people the same way we would prefer to be treated.[64]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 14

[1] This chapter is reproduced from J.K. McKee, Introduction to Things Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012).

[2] The Greek verb rendered as “destroy” in the NASU is apollumi, which has a wide variety of connotations, including: “to destroy, demolish, waste” and “to perish utterly, die” (LS, 101).

[3] Matthew George Easton, “Pharisees,” E-Sword 7.6.1: Easton’s Bible Dictionary. MS Windows 9x. Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2003.

[4] Lorman L. Petersen, “Pharisees,” in Merrill C. Tenney, ed. et al., New International Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 779.

[5] It is notable that sometimes the term “First Century Judaism” is used similar to the term “mainstream Christianity.” There is no one “mainstream Christianity” present today, or for that same matter one “mainstream Protestant Christianity.” It would be more accurate to say that there are various “Christianities,” meaning different major groups claiming to be Christian present today. In a similar vein, there are some in the Messianic community who prefer to use the terminology “First Century Judaisms,” emphasizing the various sectarian differences that were present during the period prior to and immediately after Yeshua’s ministry.

[6] R. Meyer, “Pharisaíos,” in TDNT, 1246.

[7] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004), 1241.

[8] Menahem Mansoor, “Pharisees,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica. MS Windows 9x. Brooklyn: Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd, 1997.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Flavius Josephus: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 355.

[14] Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2138.

[15] Steven Barabas, “Sadducees,” in NIDB, 885.

[16] Ron Moseley, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church (Baltimore: Lederer Books, 1996), 137.

[17] Ibid., 125.

[18] Mansoor, “Pharisees,” in EJ.

[19] Shmuel Safrai, “Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai,” in EJ.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Moshe David Herr, “Shammai,” in EJ.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Neusner, Mishnah, 674.

[25] Encylopedia Hebraica, “Hillel, the Elder,” in EJ.

[26] Neusner, Mishnah, 274.

[27] J. Goldin, “Hillel (the Elder)” in George Buttrick, ed., et. al., Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:605.

[28] Ibid.

[29] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. MS Windows XP. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. CD-ROM.

[30] For a fuller overview tracing the development of Ancient Pharisaism for today’s Biblical Studies, consult S. Mason, “Pharisees,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, pp 782-787.

[31] Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1299.

[32] Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in BKCNT, 73.

[33] Moseley, pp 91-92.

[34] The Greek verb platunō, rendered either as “broaden” (NASU) or “make…wide” (NIV), means “enlarge, widen; open wide” (CGEDNT, 143).

[35] Charles C. Ryrie, ed., The Ryrie Study Bible, NASB (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), 1487.

Consult the FAQ entries on the TNN website, “Tefillin,” “Tzit-tzits.”

[36] And certainly, no person today going by “rabbi” or “pastor” should employ these titles of authority unless he or she not only possesses the right temperament for spiritual leadership, but also the proper skills as a Bible teacher and exegete of God’s Word, including the appropriate undergraduate and/or post-graduate credentials.

[37] Indeed, my own approach to Messianic faith is somewhat self-critical, based on Yeshua’s words “first take the log out of your own eye” (Matthew 7:5), and the Rabbinic dictum, “Get yourself a teacher, find someone to study with, and judge everyone favorably” (m.Avot 1:6; Leonard Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky, eds. and trans., Pirke Avot: A Modern Commentary on Jewish Ethics [New York: UAHC Press, 1993], 5).

For a further discussion, consult the author’s article “How Are We to Live as Modern Messianics?”

[38] Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), 50.

[39] Moseley, 107.

One notable exception would have been divorce, where Yeshua’s teachings (Matthew 5:32) align more closely with the School of Shammai (m.Gittin 9:10).

[40] Ibid., pp 106-107.

[41] The failure to properly understand Paul is often compounded by a failure on behalf of many Messianic Bible teachers who do not have any ability to read or understand Greek, seeing how some of these biased translations are inserted into most mainstream Christian Bibles.

[42] “The goal of Jesus’ mission is fulfillment. He does not simply affirm the law and the prophets but actualizes the will of God that is declared in them from the standpoint of both promise and demand” (G. Delling, “plēróō,” in TDNT, p 869). Yeshua, in coming to Earth, could only fulfill the demands of the Torah because He is God in the flesh and lacks a sinful nature. As human beings, we are incapable on our own of doing what He did. He fulfilled the demands of the Torah to be the example for us of how we are to follow it.

[43] CGEDNT, 180.

[44] A note in the margins of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB) for Romans 10:4 actually reads “Or, goal” (p 1498); rendered as “culmination” in the TNIV.

[45] For a further discussion, consult the author’s commentary Philippians for the Practical Messianic.

[46] This is according to the Salkinson-Ginsburg modern Hebrew New Testament translation.

[47] Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 309.

[48] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts” in BKCNT, 419.

[49] “Gamaliel,” in NIDB, 371.

[50] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary.

[51] Bruce Chilton, “Gamaliel,” in ABD, 2:906.

[52] N.T. Wright concludes that prior to his salvation encounter, due to Paul’s great zealousness as a Pharisee (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:14, 23), he had been a Shammaite extremist (actually comparable to Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin Yigal Amir!). After his encounter with the risen Yeshua, though, Paul’s views shifted back to the more moderate Hillelite Pharisaism in which he had been originally trained (What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], pp 26-29).

[53] M.H. Pope, “Proselyte,” IDB, 3:925.

[54] The quintessential work in pro-Torah Pauline studies for the Messianic movement is Tim Hegg’s book The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2003).

Also to be considered is progress being made within a theological strata commonly known as the New Perspective of Paul (NPP). For a review of the NPP, the author recommends you peruse the following books: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977); James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990); The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).

[55] Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (Cleveland: Wiley Publishing, 2002), 477.

[56] Consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website “Torah, Command not to ‘Add to.’”

[57] The Jewish Study Bible, 2132.

[58] Ibid.

[59] For a summary on the formation of post-Second Temple Jewish religious literature, consult the Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959).

[60] Ibid., 2135.

[61] Ibid.

[62] BDAG, 763.

[63] Craig S. Keener, Matthew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 335.

[64] For a more detailed, yet brief synopsis of Pharisaical teachings, consult pp 85-157 of Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church by Ron Moseley, and pp 25-29 of Introduction to Torah Living by Tim Hegg (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2002).

-15-

Is the Hebrew Matthew an Authentic Document? 2006/2013

J.K. McKee

Among all of the texts of the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, today’s broad Messianic movement has some significant struggles when it comes to the composition of the Gospel of Matthew. There are various reasons for this, perhaps including Matthew’s length, the obvious connections and comparisons to be made between Matthew’s message and Second Temple Judaism, but above all this surrounds the original language in which Matthew was written. There is an attestation from ancient Christian history, that there was likely some kind of Hebrew material involved in the composition of Matthew’s Gospel (Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6; 3.39.16). This has not only led many of today’s Messianic people, but also leaders and teachers, to conclude that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and that there (presently) exists a Hebrew text of Matthew which is superior to the canonical Greek Matthew.

Sifting through the issue of the composition Gospel of Matthew, and some sort of Hebrew involvement concerning it—while two to three decades ago may have been an interesting philosophical exercise—has today become rather complicated. It is complicated on one level because of the intense amount of emotion and fervor demonstrated in support of an originally transcribed Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, by both those in the independent Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement and those in more mainstream Messianic Judaism. It is complicated because there does not seem to be that much engagement, at all, with contemporary examiners of the canonical Greek Matthew, who are certainly familiar with the proposal that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, but who may not see it as historically and textually valid. And, there is an eclectic text circulating in much of the Messianic world called The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (George Howard [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995]), which many have accepted as some sort of originally rediscovered manuscript—when in fact it is a hypothetical document pieced together from a Jewish anti-missionary work from the Middle Ages. Furthermore, those few Messianics, who may question the validity of the presumed Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, can be unfairly dismissed via the guise that they are trying to attack the Hebraic and Jewish origins of our Messianic faith—and even Hebrew language studies—when in reality they are simply trying to deal with the facts of history and Biblical composition.

This article will attempt to sort through some of the difficulty present in recent years by the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. We will consider what has been said, generally, about the origins of Matthew’s Gospel by some of today’s Messianic teachers and leaders of note. We will evaluate some of the challenges that few Messianic people are aware of, regarding the statement of Papias in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. We will critically examine George Howard’s text The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and whether what he has provided should be considered authentic or inauthentic. Most importantly, we will provide some alternative points of view regarding Matthew’s composition and the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew question, which have not been raised frequently enough in the Biblical Studies of our Messianic faith community.

What have Messianics said about the origins of Matthew’s Gospel?

It is interesting, but while there has been a great deal of verbal talk pertaining to the origins of Matthew’s Gospel, particularly among many Messianic Jewish congregational leaders and teachers—there has been very little written about this. Why is this the case? Perhaps it is because it is very easy to take a statement or two from ancient Christian writing, stir an audience, and then one’s subsequent opinions about such statements get touted later as established fact. Few, sadly, will bother to consider a second or third opinion. Yet, there have been some things written down about the origins of Matthew’s Gospel which we need to be aware of, as we sort through some of the psychology of remarks that continue to be made across the broad Messianic spectrum.

A rather general remark about the written origin of the Apostolic Scriptures is seen in the introduction to the Complete Jewish Bible by David H. Stern. He asserts, “there is good reason to think that several books of the New Testament either were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages; this case has been made by one scholar or another for all four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and several of the General Letters. Moreover, Sha’ul [Paul], whose letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote.”[1] No one in Biblical Studies should have any disagreement with Stern claiming that the authors of the New Testament drew upon Jewish and Hebraic thought forms, as they all lived within the context of Second Temple Judaism. Yet, whether texts such as the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, or General Epistles were originally written in Hebrew, can be contested.[2] One of the major sources of Hebrew material that undeniably sits behind the Apostolic Scriptures, is that of the Hebrew Tanach itself. Likewise, simply because these texts may demonstrate Hebraic and Jewish thought forms, does not at all necessitate a written Hebrew origin. There was an ancient style of Jewish Greek writing present in the broad First Century, which itself was influenced by the composition of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanach from the Hebrew.[3] Presumed written Hebrew origins of various New Testament books, could just as well have been Septuagint-style Jewish Greek.

The 2011 commentary Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah by Barney Kasdan, sees its author making some demonstrable emotional appeal to the Gospel of Matthew apparently having been written in Hebrew. Kasdan says,

“[There is] a significant historical point concerning the strong Jewish context of Matthew: There is a reference to Hebrew being the original language of the scroll. As the early church historian Eusebius notes, ‘Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able’ (Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxix, 16).

“While we have not found this Hebrew gospel account (yet), it is not surprising to Messianic Jews that Matthew as a Jew wrote to Jews in Hebrew!”[4]

Kasdan’s remarks are fairly typical to what you are to expect at a Messianic Jewish congregation regarding the composition of the Gospel of Matthew. There is a quote made from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, even though there is no further engagement by a writer like Kasdan with how various other examiners of Matthew have approached it—which is a bit unacceptable given Kasdan’s place as a major Messianic Jewish leader whose commentary will circulate widely. Most problematic, though, is Kasdan’s high emotional appeal: “it is not surprising to Messianic Jews that Matthew as a Jew wrote to Jews in Hebrew!” While there is no doubting that many First Century Jews could read and speak Hebrew—what about the vast numbers of Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews in the Mediterranean? It seems that these people have just been written off. And, Kasdan holds out some future hope that a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew will one day be discovered. He shares this dream along with many other of his colleagues.

A final view to recognize is seen in the brief introduction to Matthew (Mattai) in The Delitzch Hebrew Gospels version, which is an English translation of Franz Delitzch’s Nineteenth Century Hebrew translation of the Greek New Testament.[5] This introduction includes an abbreviated anthology of remarks from an early Messianic Jew, Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein (1831-1912):

“Mattai wrote his book (according to Papias and Clement of Alexandria and many others) in the Hebrew tongue mixed with Aramaic, which was customary then among the Jews, and the book was later translated into Greek....According to Papias, Mattia [sic] called his book The Sayings of Yeshua. While it is true that Mattai’s book contains both sayings of Yeshua and stories of his deeds, the Hebrew word for ‘sayings’ (divrei...) includes both words and deeds, unlike Greek. Apparently sometime later, the name was changed when they began to call his book The Gospel of Mattai.”[6]

While it is appreciable to know that Lichtenstein wrote a commentary on the New Testament in Hebrew, which will likely contain some interesting insights for many to consider—still, how many of today’s Messianic people will see what he says, and not even think to recognize that his remarks might be a bit dated to the Nineteenth Century? Lichtenstein’s commentary is over a century old. This means that there will not be an adequate triangulation of opinions and proposals from those in more contemporary Biblical Studies considered and weighed. Not enough Messianics reading a figure like Lichtenstein, in the Twenty-First Century, may sadly not be astute enough to consider this.

On the whole, today’s Messianic Jews who believe that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew will offer an appeal to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, and then make an emotional argument in favor of Matthew being written in Hebrew. Not enough evaluation of some other views will be offered. And, while it is very easy on an empirical level to refute those who are hoping for a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to be somehow discovered in or around the Land of Israel today—cutting through the human feelings is not at all very easy. Yet, precisely being more objective regarding the composition of Matthew’s Gospel is what is required.

Papias’ Logia

One of the most widespread views among today’s New Testament scholars is that the author of Matthew incorporated previous material from the Gospel of Mark, as well as data taken from another source, in assembling his Gospel.[7] This main, secondary source could have been oral or written. Frequently, it is proposed that there was a document of notes or records on Yeshua’s ministry and teachings accessible, which in many scholastic works has been designated as “Q” (an abbreviation for Quelle, the German word for “source”). A two-source or two-document hypothesis for the composition of Matthew does account for how nearly ninety-percent of Mark is repeated in Matthew, with additional information incorporated and expanding the message. While Mark’s Gospel was written largely for a Greek and Roman audience that would have been more interested in the actions of Yeshua, Matthew’s Gospel was written largely for a Jewish audience that would have been most persuaded by His prophetic fulfillment and teachings.

There are various liberal examiners who question Matthew’s authorship, as the author does not identify himself by name in the Gospel. Greek copies of this Gospel started appearing with the words kata Matthaion around 125 C.E.[8] What we know about the authorship of this Gospel comes from later Christian tradition, which ascribes Matthean origin, but also begs some complicated questions about its composition. The Fourth Century historian Eusebius detailed, “Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings” (Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6).[9] The statement that receives the most attention among Matthean interpreters, though, appears a little later when Eusebius relays the words of the Second Century C.E. figure Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor:

“Matthew composed his history [or, ‘Matthew compiled the Sayings’][10] in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16).[11]

This one statement by Papias, which appears to have been repeated by some of the other Church Fathers and made its way to Eusebius, has been interpreted in various ways—some ways being rather misleading. D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo advise examiners how these words are “notoriously difficult to translate,”[12] noting the different options for us:

“Matthew... (synetaxeto, ‘composed’? ‘compiled’? ‘arranged [in an orderly form]’?)... (ta logia, ‘the sayings’? ‘the gospel’?) in... (Hebraïdi dialektō, ‘the Hebrew [Aramaic] language’? ‘Hebrew [Aramaic] style’?) and each... (hērmēneusen, ‘interpreted’? ‘translated’ ‘transmitted’?) them as best he could.”[13]

Controversy over the composition of Matthew’s Gospel ensues over what Papias meant by saying that Matthew either compiled or assembled ta logia, as logion is generally a Greek term for “sayings” or “oracles.”[14] Noted with the further description “in the Hebrew dialect,” Hebraïdi dialektō, there are four basic ways that Eusebius’ words can be viewed:

1.

A complete Gospel text was written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic[15]

2.  Matthew put together notes of the sayings of Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic, possibly what scholars propose as being the Q document, later to be incorporated into our final and complete Greek Gospel

3.  The description Hebraïdi dialektō is to be regarded as being a Jewish style of composition/writing

4.  Logia could mean various proof texts from the Tanach Scriptures that support Yeshua’s Messiahship[16]

Conservatives will generally not argue against the disciple Matthew compiling a complete Gospel on behalf of the early Believers, which now bears his name—but how strong is the evidence that the canonical Greek text of Matthew that we have today is a translation of a complete text originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? There are a few modern Christian scholars who hold that the canonical Greek Matthew is an essentially accurate and early translation of an original non-extant Hebrew version, but such claims have been contested. More concerning to be certain, though, are how many in today’s Messianic movement feel that the canonical Greek Matthew could be a less-than-authoritative translation of an original Hebrew or Aramaic text, to be approached with a degree of suspicion. (Some Messianics, though, just say that the Greek text of Matthew is invalid.)

Textually speaking, any advocate of an original Hebrew or Aramaic written text for the Gospel of Matthew has a huge uphill mountain to climb. No ancient Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew from the Biblical period, or fragment of such a text, has surfaced that pre-dates our present Greek Matthew. “No Hebrew or Aramaic collection of Jesus’ sayings has survived, so its existence must remain hypothetical” (Anthony J. Saldarini).[17] The Aramaic Peshitta, which includes the authorized New Testament for the Syrian Orthodox Church, dates from the Fourth-Fifth Centuries C.E., and is widely recognized as being a translation from the Greek Apostolic Scriptures (although quite an early and valuable one). While there are various editions of a so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew floating around, they all date from the Middle Ages.[18] The most popular of these is the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew edited and translated into English by George Howard. This eclectic version is acknowledged in its introduction as being put together from a Jewish anti-missionary work entitled Even Bohan from the Fourteenth Century C.E.,[19] originally intended to refute “Christian claims” about Yeshua being the Messiah (discussed further). Among its various theological problems,[20] it is also significantly tarnished by using the derogatory form Yeshu for the name of the Messiah (examined further).[21]

No worthwhile Bible scholar today at all denies that there is both Semitic linguistic influence and Jewish theological significance involved with our canonical Greek Matthew. Yet there is no comprehensive evidence that should cause any faithful Believer to treat the canonical Gospel of Matthew in Greek as being something secondary or under-valued. The present canonical Greek Matthew has no indications of it being a translation of an original Hebrew Matthew. “Matthew’s Greek reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation. Furthermore, Matthew’s OT quotations are derived from the LXX [Septuagint] rather than the Hebrew text” (D.A. Hagner, ISBE).[22] If anything is to be noted, “The mix of text forms suggests an author writing in Greek but knowledgeable in Semitic languages and therefore able to vary his form” (Carson and Moo).[23] Any Hebraisms or Semitic language forms used in this Gospel and transcribed into Greek, would most likely be oral or from second hand notes, as “the view that Matthew, or any of our four gospels, was originally written in Aramaic, though warmly advocated by several modern scholars, has been almost universally repudiated. The gospel traditions undoubtedly once circulated in oral Aramaic; but the written gospels are Greek books, and the basic source for Matthew and Luke was unquestionably a Greek work, the Gospel According to Mark” (IDB).[24]

Among a wide number of modern interpreters, Eusebius’ assertion that Matthew wrote in Hebraïdi dialektō (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16) is thought to be synonymous to “in a Jewish style.”[25] Scot McKnight is one who asserts, “the Greek expression Hēbraidi dialectō, when investigated carefully…means not ‘in the Hebrew language’ but ‘in a Hebrew rhetorical style.’”[26] This would make Matthew’s Gospel an originally composed Greek document, which was sure to incorporate Hebraic sources, and as Eusebius notes everyone who read it would have interpreted it as best as possible. This probably regards not only how Matthew was understood by its original recipients, but also how it was integrated into other evangelistic and theological works.[27] McKnight further details, “the most recent scholarship on the Papias logion suggests that the traditional rendering is insufficient and should be understood now in the following manner: In contrast to Mark’s unordered, chreia-style Gospel, Papias contends, Matthew composed a more Jewish, orderly styled Gospel. The original language, then, is of no concern to Papias…In all likelihood our Gospel of Matthew was composed originally in Greek and in a Jewish style.”[28] Viewing Eusebius’ remarks in this way can be very healthy, as it enables one to favorably view the text of the canonical Greek Matthew, while recognizing its Jewish origination and deep roots in the Hebrew Tanach (Old Testament). This, in fact, seems to be the default position of many Matthean examiners.

In our estimation, the two best options for Matthew’s linguistic composition—given the extant textual data and the fact that no Hebrew or Aramaic text present pre-dates the canonical Greek Matthew—should be (1) that Papias’ statements either referred to Matthew compiling Hebrew or Aramaic notes that he later used for a complete Greek composition (perhaps Q), or (2) that a style of writing common to Second Temple Judaism is intended. Yet, as some of the recent discussions over Matthew’s origins have demonstrated, few in today’s Messianic movement have even been informed that the logia referred to by Papias, could be anything other than a complete Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (HGM)

Many Messianic people, likely being unaware of the different viewpoints present in New Testament Studies regarding Papias’ logia (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16), will be easily swayed by arguments in favor of a written Hebrew origin for Matthew’s Gospel. Since the Middle Ages, it is true that there have surfaced a number of versions of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Some of these have claimed to originate from the Second Temple period, while others of them appear to have been composed by Medieval Christians for Jewish evangelism. EDB summarizes,

“During the Middle Ages Jewish authors, writing in Hebrew, often quote the Gospel of Matthew in a text different from the canonical Greek. In 1380 the Spanish Jewish polemist Shemtob ben Isaac ibn Shaprut incorporated the entire text of Matthew in Hebrew in his treatise, ‘Eben Boḥan. His text often corresponds to the earlier Jewish quotations of Matthew in Hebrew, leading to the speculation that Shemtob’s text preserves an early copy of the Hebrew Matthew.

“In the 16th century Sebastian Münster and Jean du Tillet issued separate editions of Matthew in Hebrew, both reporting that they received their texts from the Jews. The versions of Münster and du Tillet, similar to each other, are distinct from the text of Shemtob. A close analysis of their differences reveals that the 16th-century editions, though based on a text like Shemtob’s, have been thoroughly revised so that the Hebrew now reads closely to the Christian Greek and Latin Bibles of the Middle Ages.”[29]

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (HGM), with which we are mostly concerned, is derived from the Fourteenth Century work Evan Bohan, otherwise often called the Shem Tov Matthew. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by George Howard (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), with an associated English translation, has made its way around much of the contemporary Messianic movement—even though Howard, as a textual critic, intended his HGM to be released as an entirely hypothetical work for scholars to consider, as a possible example of what an original Hebrew Matthew may have looked like (based, of course, in the conclusion that Papias’ logia did actually include a relatively complete Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, and not one of the alternatives previously discussed).

Howard had to reconstruct his text from the Evan Bohan, a Hebrew name derived from Isaiah 28:16 and its reference to “a tested stone,” even bochan.[30] Evan Bohan was authored by a Spanish Jew named Shem Tov ibn Shaprut (or Shafrut), and completed in the late Fourteenth Century. The Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes,

“[Shaprut was a] Spanish philosopher, physician, and polemic; born at Tudela in the middle of the fourteenth century… While still a young man he was compelled to debate in public, on original sin and redemption, with Cardinal Pedro de Luna, afterward Pope Benedict XIII. This disputation took place in Pamplona, Dec. 26, 1375, in the presence of bishops and learned theologians…As a Talmudic scholar he carried on a correspondence with Sheshet. At Tarazona he completed his ‘Eben Bohan’ (May, 1380 or 1385), a polemical work against baptized Jews. As a model and guide for this work, which consists of fourteen chapters, or ‘gates,’ and is written in the form of a dialogue, he took the polemical ‘Milhamot Adonai’ of Jacob ben Reuben, falsely attributed to David Kimhi….Ibn Shaprut translated portions of the Four Gospels into Hebrew, accompanying them with pointed observations; answers to the latter, written by a neophyte named Jona, also exist in manuscript.”[31]

Portions of the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, are present in Shaprut’s Evan Bohan, and are involved with Shaprut refuting the Messiahship of Yeshua and Biblical doctrines essential to Messianic faith. George Howard does candidly state in his “Analysis and Commentary” to his HGM publication, that “Shem-Tob’s Matthew, as printed above, does not preserve the original in a pure form. It reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages.”[32] Howard, appropriating the material of Evan Bohan, did his best to reconstruct the references from Matthew into a narrative similar to the accepted, canonical Greek text of Matthew.[33]

The text in which the original, presumed Hebrew Gospel of Matthew appears—is not a Biblical manuscript or codex—but rather a Jewish theological anti-missionary work, compiled by Shem Tov ibn Shaprut, who was a Jewish apologist. This work was designed to refute the actions of those Jews who in the Fourteenth Century had gone through Catholic Christian conversion. Included in this work was his version of the Gospel of Matthew, whose origins are spurious. It is not at all outside the realm of probability that Shaprut’s Matthew was actually translated from the Greek and/or Latin sources available by the ecclesiastical authorities of his day, as demonstrated by the inclusion of various Greek and Latin words in the Hebrew text (examined further). The University of Leiden in the Netherlands has a complete copy of one of the revised editions of his original work from 1584. This work is described as “a discussion on the articles of Christian belief. The thirteenth book, exhibited here, (incorrectly called the twelfth book) is a translation and a critique on the Gospels, starting with Matthew.”[34]

Howard, while believing that there are elements of an originally written Hebrew Gospel of Matthew from antiquity present in the Evan Bohan,[35] is clear in the analysis of his HGM publication that the theology present in his compilation could be quite problematic in some places:

“Some of the [theological] motifs are heretical when judged by the standard of traditional Christianity. These include the text’s views regarding the Gentiles (saved only in the messianic era), the Christ/Messiah (never equated with Jesus), and John the Baptist (portrayed in an exalted position).”[36]

These, and some other potentially problematic theological issues, should be a bit disturbing for readers of Howard’s HGM. Unfortunately, for various reasons, many Messianic people who have touted Howard’s HGM, have only read from his English translation in piecemiel, and much of the rest of the HGM has been either overlooked or ignored. And, it cannot go unnoticed how more than a few people have only looked at Howard’s HGM English version of his Hebrew reconstruction from Shaprut’s Matthew references, and have not really even thought to look at some of Howard’s own observations on the text he has constructed.

Up until the early 2000s, Howard’s HGM was understandably constrained to the examination of various textual critics, examiners of the Gospel of Matthew, and a few people in the Messianic movement. This changed, however, with the 2005 release of the sensational and hype-laden book The Hebrew Yeshua Vs. the Greek Jesus: New Light on the Seat of Moses from Shem-Tov’s Hebrew Matthew by Karaite Jew Nehemia Gordon (Hilkiah Press). He took a special interest at the different reading that the HGM appears to have provided for Matthew 23:2-3, as contrasted to the canonical Greek Matthew, which would support some of his non-traditional views of Karaite Judaism.[37] Suffice it to say, the release of Gordon’s publication and the dissemination of it throughout the Messianic community ever since (in spite of the fact that Nehemia Gordon is not at all a professed Believer in Yeshua of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah), has seen the presumed Hebrew Gospel of Matthew receive a great deal of attention—both positive and negative.[38]

A (wide) number of contemporary Messianic people think that the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew is authentic, and is primary to the Greek version of Matthew from which most Bibles are translated. Yet, in conducting some of the research for this article, I contacted the American Bible Society (www.americanbible.org), which handles the majority of the issues regarding textual criticism in North America, concerning the Shem Tov Matthew. I was told that it is not consulted by New Testament textual critics as a legitimate primary, secondary, or tertiary source, even though it might be referenced in various Matthew commentaries here or there. This organization is highly credible, and involves textual critics from many Christian denominations, and all major branches of Judaism. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, pieced together by George Howard—while perhaps having some interesting aspects to it, was originally part of an anti-missionary work—and is presently not recognized as a legitimate text to use in textual criticism by either the United Bible Societies or the American Bible Society, which publish the critical texts used for almost all modern Jewish and Christian Bible versions.

One person in the Messianic movement, who has thankfully expressed some extreme caution regarding people accepting the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew—and for that matter, any Hebrew Matthew edition originating from the Middle Ages—as being superior to the canonical Greek Matthew, has been Tim Hegg. In the introduction to his ongoing commentary on Matthew (2005-2013/2014?), Hegg summarizes much of the issue that has been spurred by the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew, and draws some conclusions that are contradictory to various Messianic proponents of its authenticity:

In recent days, much has been made of the various copies of Matthew in Hebrew, and it has even been suggested that one of these copies, the so-called “Shem-Tov,” offers the best exemplar of Matthew’s original Gospel. Let me first give a very brief description of the various Hebrew Matthews, and then offer my approach to the question of “which Matthew?”

The oldest extant Hebrew Matthew is that of the Even Bohan (...“The Touchstone”). This was a multi-volume work produced as a polemic against Christian missionaries who were doing their work among Jewish people. The Even Bohan was authored by Shem-Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut (sometimes called Ibn Shaprut). It is a polemical work comprising 12 sections or books (though an additional five sections were added later). It was originally written by Shaprut in 1380, and revised several times through subsequent years.

Of the original books the first deals with the principles of the Jewish faith, the next nine deal with various passages in the Bible that were disputed by Jews and Christians, the eleventh discusses certain haggadic sections in the Talmud used by Christians or proselytes to Christianity, and the twelfth contains the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew along with polemical comments by Shem Tob interspersed throughout the text [George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Mercer Press, 1987) p. ix].

George Howard has collated an eclectic text, comparing a number of extant manuscripts, and offered the Hebrew text of Matthew first in 1987 with a revised edition in 1995. The title of Howard’s 1987 suggested that the Shem Tov was, in fact, a “primitive Hebrew text” of Matthew. But scholarly critiques of his work made it clear that such an assertion was not well founded. Thus, in the subsequent revision, the title was changed simply to “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.” Indeed, the reaction of the scholars to Howard’s work, and thus to the value of the Shem Tov Matthew, have been predictably varied. Numbers of scholars gave strong negative reviews, but a minority were more cautious, and some have suggested that the Shem Tov Matthew should be given greater significance in the matter of textual criticism of Matthew’s Gospel.

Two other Hebrew Matthews are extant: the Münster and du Tillet. Sebastian Münster published a Hebrew version of Matthew in 1537 which he titled [torat ha’Mashiach], “The Torah of the Messiah.” In his preface Münster states that he used a “tattered” MS [manuscript], and supplemented or altered its defective text. What is exactly meant by this notice has been debated. Some think the manuscript include many lacunae which Münster supplied from other texts (Latin or Greek). [William] Horbury suggests that the manuscript he used was interspersed with polemical comments, which he extracted in order to make the Matthew text contiguous. Since, however, Münster did not mark his editorial work, use of the Münster Matthew for text-critical purposes is dubious. In 1551, Johannes Quinquarboreus published Münster’s Hebrew Matthew with critical notes in the margin, suggesting alternative readings and corrections, but it is not always clear if these were simply his own suggestions, or if he was utilizing other manuscripts to compare with the Münster.

The history of the Du Tillet Matthew is a bit uncertain. It was published in 1555 by Bishop Jean du Tillet, bishop of Saint-Brieuc, from whom it derives its name. In the preface to the published text he writes:

the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, which I would not presume to suggest Matthew wrote by divine inspiration in his own language...but yet I can affirm is clearly not in the rabbinic style, and is written in a pure form of the language that in no way resembles the writings of post-Christian Judaism.

The 1555 publicatoin was accompanied by a Latin translation (which closely followed the Vulgate) by Jean Mercier, and was published by the firm of Marin Le Juene (Martin the Younger). The Hebrew title page includes a note that it had been “stored until this day with the Jews and hidden in their dens,” which most likely means that it was among the books confiscated under papal edict.

Both the Münster and Du Tillet texts show a far greater affinity to the Greek and Latin than does the Shem Tov. But there are also some agreements between the Shem Tov and Du Tillet against the Greek and Latin witnesses, and such affinity may therefore present an important witness to alternate readings in these few places.

But an overall assessment of the extant Hebrew Matthews indicates that the Greek text that underlies our English translations is not substantially altered by comparison. Or to put it simply: the Hebrew Matthews do not present a “different Matthew” than what we know from the Greek textual witnesses. The question, then, of “which Matthew” is moot. We are fortunate that so many manuscripts bear a unified and singular witness to the Gospel itself, while at the same time offering variant textual readings in various places. Thus, we will do well to consider all of the extant manuscript evidence, and to allow the preponderance of evidence (in accordance with accepted text critical methodology) to determine the reading to be received. Surely the Hebrew Matthews have a voice in these textual determinations, but do not bear greater weight than the extant Greek manuscripts. (emphasis mine)[39]

Among the different Hebrew Matthew versions, the Shem Tov edition has gained the most publicity. Hegg considers the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew to “[present] some unique or mostly unique readings,” and “In this regard, the Shem Tov has value as we seek to study Matthew’s Gospel.”[40] However, it cannot be ignored that his overall evaluation of the hypothetical Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as represented by Howard, is largely negative. As Hegg widely concludes,

Shem Tov’s Matthew was originally interspersed with polemical comments by Ibn Shaprut. As such, it has clear tendencies toward textual corruption. For instance, an entire section (corresponding to Mark 9:20-28) is inserted following Matthew 17:17 in order to expand the single verse summary of the pericope given in Matthew’s version (17:18). In other words, Matthew 17:18 is replaced by nine verses from Mark in a revised form. In other places, words and phrases are clearly missing. For example, 18:2 breaks mid-sentence: “He called a lad...,” leaving out an entire section which Howard supplies from other manuscripts for his translation. Another example is 22:6, “And others [ ] and abused them and killed them.” Obviously the phrase “took his servants” is missing from the Shem Tov. Other anomalies occur in the Shem Tov text as well. In 16:16, Peter’s reply to Yeshua’s inquiry of “what do you say about me?” is: “You are the Messiah, that is, Kristo..., the Son of the living God, who has come into this world.” Here, it appears that the Even Bohan is transliterating the Greek word... Christos as a gloss, perhaps to alert the readers to the fact that the Hebrew mashiach is called Christos by the Christians. But why is the final sigma omitted? In 24:14, the word “antichrist” is correctly transliterated. It appears that in this instance, a scribe has dropped off the final letter of christos. These few examples should be sufficient to show that the Shem Tov is far from pristine in terms of textual consistency.[41]

Evaluating the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

While George Howard’s Hebrew Gospel of Matthew publication admits in its “Analysis and Commentary” section (pp 153-234) that there are various theological issues present in this eclectic text, such theological issues tend to barely grab the attention of some of today’s Messianic people. Far too many, who acquire a copy of the HGM, do not review it critically enough for its theology—which is perhaps even more important than being aware of Howard’s eclectic assembly of a hypothetical text, originating from the Fourteenth Century anti-missionary work Evan Bohan.

We will be comparing George Howard’s English translation of his Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (HGM) to a mainline evangelical version like the New American Standard 1995 Update (NASU). You will find that the HGM, which tends to circulate in the parts of the Messianic world, is not a publication which should be greatly trusted, and be considered too much, in one’s examination of Matthew’s Gospel.

Matthew 1:1

“These are the generations of Jesus the son of David the son of Abraham” (HGM).[42]

“The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (NASU).

The HGM says in Matthew 1:1 that Yeshua is ben David ben Avraham, but what is notably lacking is the reference to Yeshua as either “the Messiah” or “the Christ.” The canonical Greek has Iēsou Christou huiou David huiou Abraam, and a more trustworthy modern Hebrew New Testament, like that of Delitzsch, similarly has Yeshua ha’Mashiach ben-David ben-Avraham.

The HGM does not identify Yeshua as being the Messiah or the Anointed One, from its opening lines. Being originally assembled from an anti-missionary work, it is not surprising that some critical references to Yeshua being the Messiah of Israel would either be missing, or perhaps just flat removed.

Matthew 1:18

“The birth of Jesus was in this way:) It came to pass when his mother was betrothed to Joseph, before he knew her, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit” (HGM).[43]

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit” (NASU).

Matthew 1:18 is a place in the HGM which only speaks about Yeshu, a derogatory Hebrew acronym (discussed further), and lacks any full reference to Yeshua haMashiach (Delitzsch), similar to Matthew 1:1. While it is true that both the HGM does speak of the conception of Yeshua m’Ruach haQodesh, “by the Holy Spirit,” the same as the canonical Greek ek Pneumatos Hagiou, “from the Holy Spirit” (NRSV/ESV), the lack of a Messianic titular reference to this occurring would only support the idea that God’s sovereignty was involved—not necessarily that a Savior figure was about to be born.

Matthew 1:21

“She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus because he will save my people from their sins” (HGM).[44]

“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (NASU).

The rendering of the HGM for Matthew 1:21 is very similar to that of Delitzsch’s rendering in his Ninteenth Century Hebrew version. The HGM has sh’mo Yeshu ki hu yoshi’a et ami, similar to Delitzsch’s sh’mo Yeshua ki hu yoshi’a et-amo.

The difference to be noted is how the HGM has ami or “my people,” and the Delitzsch version has amo or “His people,” which follows the canonical Greek ton laon autou. Is there a significant difference between “my people” or “His people”? Most probably. If this person being born into the world of human beings is only to be perceived as some kind of agent of God, then perhaps God is sending this person so that He can save “my people.” Yet, we might want to consider how God has called His own to be a special, unique possession (Deuteronomy 4:20; cf. Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9)—and an identification of Yeshua as the One who saves His people, whom He possesses, can be recognized as ancillary support for His Divinity, as the Messiah is to precisely be “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

While it is to be agreed that Miriam/Mary was not told to name her child the Greek Iēsous—even though this name hardly originates from the name Zeus, and Iēsous was the title of the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint[45]—the HGM does not employ the standard Hebrew name Yeshua, which means “Salvation,” and appears in modern Hebrew NT versions like those of Delitzsch, Salkinson-Ginsburg, and the UBS 1991 edition.

The Messiah’s name in the HGM is spelled as yod-shin-vav, with the specific intent of the reader not to pronounce it as “Yeshua” or “Salvation.” Howard notes that “The explanation given for this change is that [yod-shin-vav] stands for [yimach sh’mo u’zikro], meaning: ‘may his name and memory be blotted out.’ Whatever can be made of this story, the spelling [yod-shin-vav] for the name of Jesus became common in medieval Jewish polemics and can be found even in the Talmud (cf. b. Sanh. 43a).”[46] The employment of Yeshu, for the name of the Messiah in the HGM, gives ample testimony to its origins as an anti-missionary work.

Matthew 3:11

“John answered all of them: Behold I truly baptize you in the days of repentance, but another comes mightier than I, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten. He will baptize you with the fire of the Holy Spirit” (HGM).[47]

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (NASU).

In the words of John the Immerser (Baptist) in Matthew 3:11, the HGM says that people will be immersed b’eish Ruach haQodesh, “the fire of the Holy Spirit.” Both the Delitzsch and Salkinson-Ginsburg modern Hebrew versions have b’Ruach haQodesh u’b’eish, which follows the canonical Greek en Pneumati Hagiō kai puri. The HGM appears to identify the Holy Spirit as a fire, whereas the canonical Greek asserts that people will be immersed/baptized with both/either the Holy Spirit and fire.

While a debated passage to be sure, especially in terms of various charismatic Christians who might fully equate the Holy Spirit with being a fire—Matthew 3:12 further states, “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Contextually speaking, to be immersed in fire is to experience eternal punishment. Identifying the Holy Spirit as a fire, in Matthew 3:11-12, is theologically incorrect.[48] Recognizing what the canonical Greek Matthew says (and even some modern Hebrew translations), correctly asserts that there will be some immersed in the Holy Spirit, meaning that they will be exalted and given the gift of the Spirit—and others will be immersed with fire, meaning that they will be judged.

Matthew 6:9-10

“But thus you shall pray: Our father, may your name be sanctified; may your kingdom be blessed; may your will be done in heaven and on earth” (HGM).[49]

“Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’” (NASU).

It is very easy to overlook the omission in Matthew 6:10, from the Lord’s prayer, because there is nothing theologically or spiritually wrong with the statement which appears in the HGM: v’yitbarakh malkutekha, “may your kingdom be blessed.” There is something theologically or spiritually amiss, when what appears in the canonical Greek is instead: elthetō hē basileia sou, “Your kingdom come.” This is followed by both the Delitzsch and Salkinson-Ginsburg modern Hebrew versions with tavo malkutekha.

Why does the version of the Lord’s prayer in the HGM exclude the appeal for God’s Kingdom to come? Whether one takes the “coming” of God’s Kingdom as a reality to be manifest in the present lives of His people, or a future eschatological reality to come to Earth—the promise of God’s Kingdom “coming” is missing, as opposed to the HGM saying something to the effect of the dual, “May Your kingdom be blessed, may Your kingdom come.” One is left to widely conclude that since the HGM is pieced together from an anti-missionary document, then there is an intent to present Yeshua as not being a figure who is to usher in the Kingdom of God upon Earth.

The canonical Greek text of Matthew (and some subsequent modern Hebrew versions) in contrast, presents the Messiah commanding His followers to pray that God’s Kingdom come to and thus be established on Earth. Born again Believers are of the firm conviction that this is to consummate in the future at His Second Coming.

Matthew 7:28-29

“While Jesus was speaking these words all the people were greatly astonished at his conduct, because he was preaching to them with great power, not as the rest of the sages” (HGM).[50]

“When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (NASU).

In Matthew 7:29, the HGM says that while Yeshua had koach gadol or “great power,” He is only associated k’asher ha’chakamim, “as...the sages.” The canonical Greek has exousian or “authority,” which is only slightly different than “power,” and is not really an issue. But also, in contrast, the Greek has hoi grammateis autōn, “their scribes,” followed by the UBSHNT with soferei’hem.

While it is doubtlessly true that Yeshua was a Master Teacher, the HGM appears to make Him out just to be another scribe or sage or rabbi. Yeshua, in having either power or authority, should not be merely associated with the company of the scribes or sages. The canonical Greek Matthew separates Him enough from the normal company of religious teachers of His day, affirming that He is indeed unique. An anti-missionary work like the Evan Bohan, from which the HGM was assembled, would not want to portray Yeshua as being too different from your standard run-of-the-mill First Century Jewish teacher.

Matthew 9:2

“They brought to him one who was sick with contractions, that is, paralitico, lying upon his bed. Jesus saw their faith and said to the sick man: Have courage my son. It is by the faith of God that your sins have been forgiven” (HGM).[51]

“And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, ‘Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven’” (NASU).

It is very easy to see the differences between the HGM and the canonical Greek Matthew, and what they communicate about the nature of Yeshua via this healing in Matthew 9:2. The means by which the paralytic is forgiven in the HGM is stated to be b’emunat haEl, “by the faith of God.” While this statement is not theologically incorrect, the canonical Greek Matthew says something noticeably different. In the narrative, Yeshua Himself directly says aphientai sou hai hamartiai, “your sins are forgiven.”

In the canonical Greek Matthew, Yeshua directly forgave the invalid’s sins Himself. It cannot go unnoticed from the testimony of the Gospels, that some Pharisees who criticized Yeshua concluded that He was a blasphemer because He forgave sins, something that only God Himself could do (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). Yeshua could only be regarded as One legitimately forgiving sins, if He were, in fact, Divine. The HGM, as a product of the anti-missionary Evan Bohan, is not going to uphold Yeshua being God, and with it His offering direct forgiveness for sins.

Matthew 12:6

“Truly I say to you that the temple is greater than this” (HGM).[52]

“But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here” (NASU).

It is generally to be recognized in the scene of Matthew 12:1-7 and plucking grain on the Sabbath, that Yeshua’s teachings/actions/deeds/halachah is what is taken to be the most important thing here—as it reflects the will of the Father (Matthew 12:7; cf. Hosea 6:6). This is why the canonical Greek Matthew says tou hierou meizon estin hōde, “something greater than the temple is here,” followed by a modern version like Delitzsch which has yesh-po gadol min-ha’miqdash. Contrary to this, the HGM has sh’miqdash gadol m’menu hu.

The HGM, commenting on the place of the Torah and the Temple, attests that only the Temple is greater than the bread of the presence (Matthew 12:4). Yeshua, in the canonical Greek Matthew, attests that He is the One who is greater than the Temple. Once again, we encounter an example in the HGM which denies that Yeshua the Messiah is primary to all other things.

Matthew 16:16

“Simon, called Petros, answered and said: You are the Messiah, that is, Kristo, the Son of the Living God, who has come into this world” (HGM).[53]

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’” (NASU).

Matthew 16:16 represents a place in the HGM where some severe skepticism toward its historical authenticity needs to be demonstrated. One should not be immediately taken back by seeing Shimon niqra Petros, “Simon, called Petros,” in the HGM, because modern Hebrew versions like those of Delitzsch and Salkinson-Ginsburg similarly have Shimon Petros, following the canonical Greek’s Simōn Petros.

The bigger issue for certain, appears in Simon Peter’s declaration atah Mashiach laz Qristo. The modern versions of Delitzsch and Salkinson-Ginsburg, in contrast, simply have atah hu haMashiach, following the canonical Greek su ei ho Christos.

If the HGM is an authentic Hebrew source written by Matthew, the tax collector Levi, himself, then the dialogue actually has Simon Peter clearly calling Yeshua what appears in its Hebrew text as Qristo, which is undoubtedly a Hebrew transliteration of Christos, the Greek word meaning “Anointed One” that is most frequently rendered as “Christ” in English Bibles. Why would Peter be referring to Yeshua as Qristo in a Hebrew document supposedly written by Matthew? This is an internal proof of the fact that the HGM does not originate from the First Century period, given the presence of a Greek-derived term such as Qristo in its text. This is stronger proof of the HGM being assembled from Greek and/or Latin sources in the Middle Ages, in the Shem Tov’s writing of his Evan Bohan.

Matthew 17:11-13

“He answered them and said: Indeed Elijah will come and will save all the world. I say to you, he has already come, they did not know him, and they did to him according to their desire. (So) they will do to the Son of Man. Then the disciples understood that regarding John the Baptizer he was saying this” (HGM).[54]

“And He answered and said, ‘Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (NASU).

Theologically, it is not difficult to discern the issues between what the HGM has for Matthew 17:11, and what the canonical Greek has. The HGM reads with Eliyah yavo v’yoshia kol ha’olam, “Elijah will come and will save all the world.” The canonical Greek has the contrasting, Hēlias men erchetai kai apokatastēsei panta, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things” (TLV). This is followed by a modern Hebrew version like that of Delitzsch with Eliyahu yavo bari’shonah v’hei’shiv et-ha’kol.

The HGM says that “Elijah will come and save all the world,” whereas the canonical Greek says “Elijah is coming and will restore all things.” The latter makes Elijah, or perhaps the spirit in which Elijah functioned (which is later applied to John the Immerser), as a precursor to the coming of the Messiah who will actually save. The restoration of all things, being brought via Elijah, is a bit different than Elijah saving the world. Howard notes in his HGM publication that “John the Baptist in the Hebrew text…plays a more exalted role than in the canonical gospels.”[55] Later on, he states quite candidly, “John the Baptist is given an exalted role,”[56] in contrast to Yeshua who is obviously being downplayed. In this passage, Elijah becomes the savior as opposed to Yeshua, who is the Savior. Why is this the case? Is it intended to disprove the Messiahship of Yeshua?

Matthew 19:28

“Jesus said: Truly I say to you who follow me, in the day of judgment when man sits upon the throne of his glory you also will sit upon the twelve thrones of the twelve tribes of Israel” (HGM).[57]

“And Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’” (NASU).

Matthew 19:28 obviously presents Yeshua speaking of the future, eschatological restored Kingdom of Israel, and there are notable differences between the HGM and the canonical Greek Matthew. The HGM says k’asher yeisheiv ha’adam al kisei kevodo. It is interesting that a modern Hebrew version like that of Delitzsch is almost identical to this: k’asher yeisheiv ben-ha’adam kisei kevodo, following the canonical Greek hotan kathisē ho huios tou anthrōpou epi thronou doxēs autou. The omission, however, is clear: in the HGM the Divine title of ben-ha’adam (Delitzsch) or the Son of Man (ho huios tou anthrōpou) is decisively missing, and the HGM only has ha’adam, man/humanity. This is a major title of significance for Yeshua, given the fact that it is taken directly from the theophany of Daniel 7:13-14.[58]

The HGM has been caught excluding a Divine title for Yeshua, the Son of Man, instead only making reference to restored man/humanity in the eschaton. The canonical Greek Matthew presents Yeshua as the Son of Man establishing His Kingdom and who decisively restores humanity, and then granting power to His Twelve Disciples, who will rule over the restored Israel. Once again, the origins of the HGM as an anti-missionary work, intended to downplay and disregard the authority of Yeshua, are noticeably detectable.[59]

Matthew 24:14-15

“And this gospel, that is, evungili, will be preached in all the earth for a witness concerning me to all the nations and then the end will come. This is the Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which desolates which was spoken of by Daniel [as] standing in the holy place. Let the one who reads understand” (HGM).[60]

“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)” (NASU).

Within the Olivet Discourse teaching of Yeshua on the Last Days, the HGM edition of Matthew 24:14-15 includes two statements, which discount it as not only a legitimate product of the First Century C.E., but represent it also as being in severe theological error.

The first, and most obvious issue, is the presence of the Greek-Latin derived term “evungili,” likely via euangelion or “gospel.” The HGM is obviously not a product of First Century Hebrew composition, with this term employed to describe besorah or “gospel.”

The second, but most problematic issue, is seen in Matthew 24:15 in the HGM, as it is a text which actually identifies the proclamation of the good news or gospel to the whole world as being “the Anti-Christ.” Aside from making such a blasphemous assertion—discounting the Creator’s desire to see all of humanity saved from its sins—the HGM actually says zeh anti-qristos or “this is the anti-qristos” in its Hebrew text, using a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek antichristos. Howard, as the compiler of the HGM, is honest, though, as he details,

“The Hebrew text is difficult, it appears to mean that preaching the gospel to the Gentiles before the end-time is the Anti-Christ and the abomination which desolates. No stronger statement against the salvation of the Gentiles in the present age occurs in Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew.”[61]

In response to this, some may claim that the Shem Tov ibn Shaprut, inserted the term anti-qristos in Hebrew as a textual gloss off to the side.[62] This would mean that when readers would examine his Evan Bohan, they would be pointed to a section of Yeshua’s teaching that would be referred or associated with the “Anti-Christ” by Christian teachers. But this is problematic, because the text of the anti-missionary Evan Bohan is Shem Tov’s philosophical diatribe against Yeshua’s Messiahship and ministry work. If this were only a gloss, then this reference to the anti-qristos should have been included exclusively with the later commentary concerning Matthew 24:14-15, and not in the text itself. This reinforces the thrust of the text which is that salvation is excluded from non-Israelites.

If the theology of this statement is not problematic enough, the fact that the HGM, again supposedly written by Matthew Levi the tax collector in Hebrew—actually uses a Greek word like antichristos—proves that its origins are not from Second Temple Judaism, making it most likely derived from Medieval Greek and Latin sources.

There are probably some more passages from George Howard’s Hebrew Gospel of Matthew that could be examined, and other problematic issues that likely could be probed. Yet, the previous analysis on Matthew 1:1, 18, 21; 3:11; 6:9-10; 7:28-29; 9:2; 12:6; 16:16; 17:11-13; 19:28; 24:14-15, should demonstrate clearly enough that the HGM publication floating around the Messianic community, must be treated with extreme suspicion and great caution on theological grounds. There should be no substantial reason whatsoever for contemporary Messianic people to devalue or disregard the canonical Greek Matthew.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 15

[1] David H. Stern, trans., Complete Jewish Bible (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), xxxi.

[2] Consult the workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[3] Much of this is covered in R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

[4] Barney Kasdan, Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah: A Messianic Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Lederer Books, 2011), 3.

[5] This version has been reviewed in the article “English Bible Versions and Today’s Messianic Movement” by J.K. McKee, appearing in his book Confronting Critical Issues.

[6] Aaron Eby and Robert Morris, trans., et. al., The Delitzch Hebrew Gospels: A Hebrew/English Translation (Marshfield, MO: Vine of David, 2011), xlvi.

[7] The material in this section has been adapted from the workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic.

[8] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 43.

[9] Eusebius of Caesarea: Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 89.

Further on in Eusebius’ record, he describes how a Christian evangelistic figure named Pantanaeus made it to India, where he encountered “some who were acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached and had left them the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, which was also preserved until this time” (Ecclesiastical History 5.10.3; p 166).

[10] Eusebius: The History of the Church, trans. G.A. Williamson and Andrew Louth (London: Penguin Books, 1989), 104.

[11] Ecclesiastical History, 106.

Repeating Papias’ claim, the Second Century apologist Irenaeus states, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect” (Against Heresies 3.1.1; BibleWorks 8.0: Schaff, Early Church Fathers. MS Windows Vista/7 Release. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2009-2010. DVD-ROM).

[12] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 143.

[13] Ibid.

[14] H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 476.

[15] Guthrie, in New Testament Introduction, pp 46-48.

[16] D.A. Hagner, “Matthew, Gospel According to,” in ISBE, 3:281.

[17] Anthony J. Saldarini, “Matthew,” in James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1000.

[18] These include the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew (1380), the Sebastian Münster edition (1537), and the duTillet manuscript (1555).

A history of these editions is summarized by Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: Chapters 1-7 (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2007), pp 2-4. Regarding these versions he concludes, “[T]he Hebrew Matthews do not present ‘a different Matthew’ than what we know from the Greek textual witnesses,” further concluding how they “do not bear greater weight than the extant Greek manuscripts” (Ibid., 4).

[19] George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), xi.

He later acknowledges how his text “does not preserve the original in a pure form. It reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages” (Ibid., 178).

[20] These problems include, but are not limited to: the exclusion of the nations from the Kingdom in Matthew 10:5-6 (Ibid., 214), the preaching of the good news to the nations as being the antichrist and Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24:14-15 (Ibid., 215), and most especially how “With the possible exception of [Matthew] 16:16…the author of Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew never identifies Jesus with the Christ” (Ibid., 216).

[21] The derogatory acronym Yeshu, yimach sh’mo u’zikro, means “may his name and memory be blotted out” (Ibid., 207).

[22] Hagner, “Matthew, Gospel According to,” in ISBE, 3:281.

Hegg, Matthew 1-7, 5 only confirms, “the extant Greek Matthew does not read as a translation of a Hebrew original.”

[23] Carson and Moo, 143.

[24] F.C. Grant, “Matthew, Gospel of,” in George Buttrick, ed. et. al., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 3:304.

[25] Cf. Duane A. Garrett, ed., et. al., NIV Archaeological Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 1556.

[26] S. McKnight, “Matthew, Gospel of,” in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 527.

This is certainly allowed from the meanings of dialektos as “[manner of] discourse: discussion, debate, arguing” or “a way of speaking, enunciation” (LS, 190).

[27] Cf. Hagner, “Matthew, Gospel of,” in ISBE, 3:281.

[28] McKnight, “Matthew, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp 527-528.

[29] George Howard, “Matthew, Hebrew Gospel of,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 874; cf. George Howard, “Matthew, Hebrew Version of,” in ABD, 4:642-643.

[30] Cf. Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6.

[31] Richard Gottheil and Meyer Kayserling (n.d.). Ibn Shaprut, Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15 July, 2005, from <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8017-ibn-shaprut-shafrut>.

[32] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 178.

[33] For a critical review of some of Howard’s methodology in the compilation of his HGM, consult William L. Petersen. (1998). Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's “Hebrew Matthew.” The Pennsylvania State University Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. Accessible via <http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html>.

[34] University of Leiden Bible Collection <http://ub.leidenuniv.nl/bc/tentoonstelling/Judaica/object7.htm>, accessed 15 July, 2005.

[35] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 178.

[36] Ibid., 212.

[37] Matthew 23:2-3 has been addressed in the author’s article “Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?” appearing in the Messianic Torah Helper by TNN Press.

[38] A negative view of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew would be seen in: Brian J. Tebbitt and Tim Hegg. “Original Hebrew Gospel Discovered?” Messiah Magazine Issue 86, Bamidbar 5765 (2005); Tim Hegg. (2005). Why Nehemia Gordon is Wrong About Matthew 23:3. Torah Resource. Accessible via <http://torahresource.com>.

A more positive disposition of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is detectable in: James Scott Trimm, trans., The Hebraic-Roots Version Scriptures (Northriding, South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 2006), 1223; The Scriptures, third edition (Northriding, South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 2009), pp xix, 946.

[39] Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: Chapters 1-7 (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2007), pp 3-4.

[40] Ibid., 4.

[41] Ibid., 3.

[42] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 3.

[43] Ibid., 5.

[44] Ibid., 5.

[45] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Jesus, Pagan Name.”

[46] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 207.

[47] Ibid., 11.

[48] For a further examination of this issue, G.W. Bromiley, “Baptism of Fire,” in ISBE, 1:426.

[49] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 25.

[50] Ibid., 31.

[51] Ibid., 37.

[52] Ibid., 53.

[53] Ibid., 79.

[54] Ibid., 83.

[55] Ibid., 219.

[56] Ibid., 234.

[57] Ibid., 97.

[58] “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).

[59] Given the theological and emotional complexities manifested over Matthew 23:2-3, in various parts of the contemporary Messianic movement, these verses have been purposefully left out of the examination of this article.

Matthew 23:2-3 has been addressed in the previous chapter “Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?”

[60] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 121.

[61] Ibid., 215.

[62] So concludes Gordon, pp 79-82.

-16-

MATTHEW 23:2-3

Who Sits in the Seat of Moses? 2013

J.K. McKee

There is no doubting, that when one surveys much of the broad Messianic movement, that there are some significant issues which not only divide us, but which spur on some strong emotions. One passage in the Gospel of Matthew frequently stirs vehement emotions, from all sides of the theological and ideological spectrum: Matthew 23:2-3. These verses appear within a much larger section of Matthew’s Gospel, Matthew 23:1-36, which is hardly an easy passage for Bible readers to encounter and evaluate. For much of Christian history, even extending into the present, individual Christians have read Matthew 23:1-36 as a widespread condemnation by the Messiah of all things represented by the Jewish Pharisees, and by extension the religion of Judaism. Many scholars involved in Second Temple Jewish Studies and/or New Testament studies have been much more tempered, and have only seen the hypocrisy of the leaders of the scribes and Pharisees being targeted—not their basic beliefs and convictions about God, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the general value of Jewish tradition—and such views have been followed by many contemporary Messianic Jewish examiners. When one enters into the fray of Matthew 23:2-3 views in the more independent sectors of the Messianic movement, some significant variance regarding Matthew 23:2-3 is witnessed, with more negativity issued toward the Jewish Pharisees than would seem appropriate.

What did Yeshua the Messiah actually communicate to His First Century followers in Matthew 23:2-3, and how do they apply for us today? He said, “The Torah-teachers and the P'rushim...sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don't do what they do, because they talk but don't act!” (CJB). Is this a blanket endorsement of the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, and that they are to be blindly followed in all matters? Is this a recognition of the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, and that their input into theological and spiritual matters is to be consulted, not disregarded—but to be disregarded if it runs contrary to the ethos of written Scripture via significant hypocrisy? Or, as many people have concluded, is the canonical Greek text of Matthew to be disregarded, in favor of some readings present in the hypothetical (and highly controversial) Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, derived from the Fourteenth Century anti-missionary work Evan Bohan?

Matthew 23:2-3 is a passage which has been used to justify everything from today’s Messianic Jewish Believers following almost every single halachic ruling of the ultra Orthodox and/or Chassidic Jewish authorities and their literature, to Messianic Believers completely disregarding all forms of ancient and/or modern Jewish tradition in their approach to the Torah or Law of Moses, totally dismissing works like the Mishnah or Talmud as valuable historical records. Unfortunately, for whatever reason or series of reasons, moderating the extremes on Matthew 23:2-3 has not been too permitted in the Messianic movement of 2013—for it is easy to see the negative spiritual and theological fruit of the extremes of Matthew 23:2-3, either (1) representing a widescale dismissal of all forms of Rabbinic Jewish tradition and custom, or (2) requiring a blind obedience to Orthodox Judaism on the part of contemporary Messianic Believers. A third, depolarizing alternative to the current interpretations widely touted, desperately needs to be presented.

The perspective of Matthew 23:2-3, that will be defended in this article, is that while Yeshua the Messiah had very strong, condemning words for the leaders of the scribes and Pharisees, He also recognized their significance as interpreters of the Torah of Moses. The Messiah had very strong words of rebuke for much of the hypocritical behavior of the scribal and Pharisaical leaders, but He did recognize their leadership importance, nonetheless. Messianic Believers today are to regard the ancient Pharisees—and by extension the Orthodox Jewish, and also the Conservative Jewish (and possibly even Reform Jewish) traditions—as having some degree of what should be regarded as consultative authority. Yeshua’s word about the leadership place of the Pharisees, should be taken as being most similar to various Apostolic admonitions to obey the Roman government[1]—which was certainly to be disobeyed when civil authority was in significant clash with the interests of the good news.[2] The Jewish Pharisees of the First Century, and their Rabbinical successors, should not be just dismissed and tossed away by today’s Messianics—for we will inevitably have to consult their perspectives, among others,[3] for how they handled various Biblical, spiritual, and social issues in their generations.

Matthew 23:2-3

“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (NASU).

epi tēs Mōuseōs kathedras ekathisan hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi. panta oun hosa ean eipōsin humin poiēsate kai tēreite, kata de ta erga autōn mē poieite legousin gar kai ou poiousin

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat’” (Matthew 23:1-2, NIV). This statement affirms the place of some sort of seat or chair of Moses (tēs Mōuseōs kathedras). Such a seat, or chair, could have been a literal feature of the architecture various ancient synagogues, akin to a kind of throne, from which leaders of importance would issue various teachings and rulings. For certain, “the seat/chair of Moses” represented an office of power exercised by the leaders of the scribes and Pharisees within Second Temple Judaism, where important doctrines would be issued to the people, as well as decisions on halachah relating to how the Torah of Moses was to be applied corporately and individually within the Jewish community.

After having acknowledged that the scribes and the Pharisees sat on the seat/chair of Moses, and that they possessed and exercised some level of authority within the First Century Jewish community, Yeshua further says, “So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:3, NIV). There has understandably been much controversy over Yeshua stating “practice and observe whatever they tell you” (Matthew 23:3a, RSV), with the plural neuter pronoun hosa, likely “pert. to a comparative quantity or number of objects or events; how much (many), as much (many) as” (BDAG).[4] It is not enough that Yeshua just tells His audience to do “all” (panta), but this is qualified as speaking of a wide number of areas pertaining to the Torah or Law of Moses—“all things therefore whatsoever” (American Standard Version).

Immediately after, though, recognizing the place of the scribes in Pharisees in speaking various instructions to the people—which are to be followed—Yeshua concludes His opening statement to the crowd with a qualification: “But do not do according to their works [kata de ta erga autōn], for they say, and do not do” (LITV). This is properly akin to “don't follow their example” (NLT) or “you must not imitate their lives” (Phillips New Testament).

While Christian laypersons examining Matthew 23:2-3 might be at a total cunundrum at times in reading what Yeshua says—finding themselves widely glossing over Yeshua’s word about the scribes and Pharisees exercising some kind of authority, and moving on to His condemnation of their hypocrisy—various Christian commentators and theologians have had to be far more tempered. It cannot go overlooked, for example, that immediately prior in Matthew 22:23-33, Yeshua decisively stands on the theological side of the Pharisees, and starkly against the Sadducees, when it comes to the issue of the resurrection of the dead. Likewise, Yeshua takes the side of emphasizing the Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 Torah admonitions as the most important of the commandments (Matthew 22:34-40), which would be in widescale alignment with the classic view of a Pharisee like Hillel (b.Shabbat 31a).[5] In the narrative of Matthew 23:2-3a following, it is logical for the Messiah to recognize some level of significant power that the scribes and Pharisees yield—surely over major doctrinal matters like the resurrection! The scribes and Pharisees surely also issued many fair and reasonable and common sense rulings for the First Century Jewish community for the application of God’s Torah. At the same time, as should not be surprising, the scribal and Pharisaical leaders are specified, in Matthew 23:3bff, to have problems with their attitudes and behavior—attitudes and behavior which are not to be imitated by Yeshua’s followers.

In briefly surveying a selection of Christian commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, one will encounter two principal views held on Matthew 23:2-3:

1.

The Messiah recognizes and broadly endorses the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, but His followers are not to observe their hypocrisy, and should not follow them when their rulings are in stark contradiction to the ethical intentions of the Mosaic Torah.

2.  The Messiah appears to endorse the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, but via ironic rebuke undermines them, and their presumed authority, completely.

Even with demonstrating a variance of positions and perspectives on the continued validity of the Torah or Law of Moses in the post-resurrection era, there are quite a few Christian commentators of Matthew who conclude that the Messiah recognized some degree of authority that the scribal and Pharisaical leaders legitimately possessed, but that His followers were not to emulate their attitudes:

•  Leon Morris: “[Jesus’] complaint is not that these men were false teachers; they were orthodox and they were rightly drawing people’s attention to the things that Moses had taught and that were of permanent importance for the people of God...They studied the law of Moses closely and expounded it in great detail. There was nothing wrong with this part of what they were doing, and Jesus commends it. Of course, when they went beyond the law of Moses they could and did go wrong, and Jesus criticises them for it....Jesus warns his hearers that they should not live in the way the Pharisees lived, though they should take careful note of what the Pharisees taught. When the Pharisees brought out the significance of the teaching of Moses, they were doing something of great importance for the people of God. What they were teaching was both meaningful and creditable: they should be heard. But when they acted hypocritically, that was another matter: they should not be imitated or followed.”[6]

•  M. Eugene Boring: “‘Moses’ seat’ is a metaphorical expression representing the teaching and administrative authority of the synagogue leadership, scribes and Pharisees. Surprisingly, and in contrast both to what precedes (16:6, 12) and to what immediately follows (23:4, 16-22), Jesus condemns only the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, not their teaching...Jesus has, in fact, just been defending the doctrinal perspective of the Pharisees (22:23-40)...Matthew probably intends by the present passage that the Pharisees and scribes are right in founding their way of life on exposition of the Torah, which his Christian community also affirms (5:17-48), without here taking into account their different interpretations.”[7]

•  Craig S. Keener: “Jesus agrees that many of the scribes and Pharisees’ ethical teachings are good; the problem is not their teaching but their lives (vv. 2-3; Rom 2:21), a dichotomy known to exist among many religious professions and other religious people today. The religious leaders have seated themselves in Moses’ seat, probably meaning that they have adopted the role of the law’s interpreters...Although Pharisaic ethics emphasized being as lenient or strict with others as one was with oneself...in practice Jesus accuses them of being too strict with others and too lenient with their own failings...which fits the way Christians often evaluate sins today.”[8]

•  Michael J. Wilkins: “The declaration is somewhat surprising, given [Jesus’] antipathy toward [the Pharisees] in the following warnings and woes. While this may be sarcasm or bitter irony, Jesus’ statement follows from the religious leaders’ position as expounders of Moses’ teaching. He gives a scathing denunciation, yet he recognizes their official capacity when exercised in a proper manner. Any and all accurate interpretation of Scripture is to be obeyed. The Pharisees had many good things to say, and their doctrine was closer to Jesus’ on many crucial issues than to other groups. Jesus does not deny that their teaching is beneficial for spiritual life, and he endorses, in principle, their desire to pursue righteous ends. In this sense, Jesus does not condemn them for developing their teaching, but he does condemn oral tradition when it incorrectly interprets the intent of the Old Testament and inappropriately supplants it (cf. 15:1-9).”[9]

•  Donald A. Hagner: “To begin with, Jesus makes a positive statement concerning the Pharisees that applauds them in principle for being those who occupy themselves with the important task of interpretation of the teaching of Moses...This means that as the custodians of Moses’ teaching they share in his authority and are accordingly to be respected...Because...the Pharisees expound the Mosaic Torah, one is to follow their teaching...That...[this] is an approval in principle rather than fact...becomes clear from vv 13-33, and especially vv 16-22, where Jesus explicitly rejects what the Pharisees say (cf. v 4)...Jesus has on several occasions earlier in Matthew distanced himself remarkedly from the teaching of the Pharisees (cf. 9:10-11, 14; 12:1-2, 10-14; 15:1-20; 19:3-9) and at one point actually warned his disciples to ‘beware of the leaven [i.e., the teaching] of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ (16:6, 11-12).”[10]

While there are Christian examiners who take Matthew 23:2-3 to be a recognition of the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, where their human rulings are consistent with the Torah of Moses—there are others who view Yeshua’s words as being a form of ironic rebuke, not to be taken at all literally or seriously. D.A. Carson, noting that “because Jesus has during his ministry repeatedly criticized the scribes and Pharisees for their teaching,” takes His word about the scribes and Pharisees being seated in the seat/chair of Moses as being akin to, “The Jewish religious leaders have ‘presumed’ to sit in Moses’ seat,”[11] and thus their place and authority are to be completely disregarded. R.T. France is one who similarly concludes, “in what follows Jesus [in vs. onward] will dispute their right to [an] authoritative role, so that it is probably right to read this verse, like the exhortation which follows in v. 3a, as ironical....Their behavior in effect annuls their ‘Mosaic’ authority.”[12]

Without knowing too much of the personal psychology of different Christian examiners of Matthew 23:2-3, the fairer interpreters are going to weigh in not only where Yeshua disagrees with the Pharisees, but where He agrees with them. The defense of the doctrine of the resurrection, actually preceding in Matthew 22:23-33—where Yeshua obviously agrees with the Pharisees—cannot be overlooked or dismissed, as having some role in interpreting what is meant in Matthew 23:2-3.[13] And, it would seem that various Christian interpreters, in allowing the Messiah to demonstrate some affinity for the scribes and Pharisees, have weighed this fact into their deliberations.

It would not be inappropriate, in evaluating the place of Matthew 23:2-3, situated between Matthew 22:23-23:1 and Matthew 23:4-30, that Yeshua did indeed endorse the scribes and Pharisees on their official doctrines as they pertained to the major, overarching issues of substance, surrounding the First Century Jewish community. When it came to the scribal and Pharisaical leaders’ perception of themselves, and their adherence to minute regulations at the expense of the much larger matters of social justice and acts of kindness and mercy to people in need—the scribes and Pharisees are then heartily and forthrightly condemned. An honest reader of Matthew 23:2-3, with the preceding and succeeding cotext in view, hardly sees a blanket endorsement by the Messiah of following every single ruling and practice that the Pharisees prescribed or communicated—but likewise the scribes and the Pharisees can hardly just be ignored or disregarded as a useful voice within Second Temple Judaism. That the scribes and Pharisees had a consultative authority for the First Century Messiah followers, and for Biblical examiners today to consider on a range of issues, is a fair conclusion to draw.

Messianic Jewish Approaches to Matthew 23:2-3

There is little doubting the fact that when seeing Yeshua make the statement, “The Torah scholars and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. So whatever they tell you, do and observe...” (Matthew 23:2-3a, TLV), that there have been wide numbers of Messianic Jewish individuals, and even a few Messianic Jewish leaders, who have taken Yeshua’s words far, far off the map. While none of us should doubt the fact that Yeshua the Messiah was a First Century Jew, who not only kept the Torah but also a reasonable number of the customs of His people—and that the term “tradition” need not be viewed as a dirty word by any of us—the argument that Yeshua practiced Judaism has been used by some contemporary Messianic Jews to justify blind obedience to the Talmudic Sages, or to endorse ideas equating Yeshua as their First Century version of a Kabbalistic mystic, or to basically synthesize as much of the Apostolic Scriptures with Orthodox Judaism as they can. While a fair appreciation of Yeshua endorsing the lead of the scribes and Pharisees on the big issues of importance, such as the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33), must be acknowledged—it can be observed that one can take His argument in principle for ancient Rabbinic authority beyond what is acceptable, for followers who must first acknowledge His authority and the authority He gave to His Apostles (Matthew 16:19).

It would be most impossible to summarize all of the views present in the contemporary Messianic Jewish movement on Matthew 23:2-3, regarding the issue of authority possessed by the First Century scribes and Pharisees. What Matthew 23:2-3 means in terms of today’s Messianic Jews following their successors, down to Orthodox and ultra Orthodox Rabbis today, are widely going to be found in views held by various minorities in Messianic Jewish congregations and fellowships. Most Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers do not believe that Matthew 23:2-3 requires a blind obedience on the part of Messianic Jews to follow all of the rulings of ancient Rabbinical literature or the halachah of the Orthodox, or even Conservative, Synagogue. Yet at the same time, ignoring the vast bodies of literature and perspectives, offered by the Jewish theological tradition, is something hardly present, either.

In order to facilitate how Matthew 23:2-3 has been viewed in the Messianic Jewish movement, up to the present, this section will summarize and briefly comment on a selection of significant views, from published writers, which we are all likely to encounter in one form or another:

David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary (1992), did not choose to explore the ramifications of Matthew 23:2-3 in great detail, although he did acknowledge that it can be taken to mean that Messianic Jews might be required to follow Orthodox Jewish halachah. Instead, he mentions how halachic authority was widely transferred from the Jewish religious leaders to Yeshua’s Apostles:

The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim...sit in the seat of Moshe, exercising the power of “the cohen or judge in office at that time” (Deuteronomy 17:8-13), officially interpreting the Torah. There are some who understand this verse to mean that, according to Yeshua, the Oral Torah, as expounded in Orthodox Judaism, is binding on Messianic Jews today. I do not believe this, because I think Yeshua had already initiated a process of transferring halakhic authority from the cohanim, judges and rabbis to the emissaries and later leaders of the Messianic Community.[14]

Stern then goes on to refer the reader to further remarks made in his Messianic Jewish Manifesto (1991), which was republished in 2007 as Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement With An Ancient Past, where he has commented on the place of traditional halachah for today’s Messianic Jews, with the statements of Yeshua in Matthew 23:2-3 as a factor.[15] Stern appears to recognize the value of considering the Oral Torah for various issues, such as a woman getting a divorce, but places the supreme value and importance upon the teachings of Yeshua and the ethos of the Apostolic Scriptures:

When the Oral Torah was truly oral, not fixed as it has been since the compiling of the Talmud, there was more room for flexibility. Conservative Judaism tries—albeit in a very limited way, since its rule-making bodies are controlled by its right wing—to modernize certain halakhot. A well-known example is the rule concerning the agunah, the woman whose husband has disappeared and whose whereabouts is unknown. According to Orthodox halakhah, the woman cannot obtain a divorce, because the husband is not there to write her a get [bill of divorce], nor can she be regarded as a widow, since there is no definite evidence the husband has died. Therefore she cannot remarry. This can cause great hardship—a young agunah who never learns the fate of her husband must stay single all her life. Conservative Judaism has developed a different halakhah which allows remarriage under certain conditions and thus alleviates the hardship.

All this is by way of background of considering what the role of halakhah might be in light of the New Covenant. According to the New Testament, every believer has in him the Spirit of God [Romans 8:9]. It is written that the letter kills, but the Spirit [makes] alive [2 Corinthians 3:6]. It does not say that the Torah kills, for the Torah is holy, just and good. It does say that love fulfills the Torah, which I see as another way of saying that obedience to the Torah by the Spirit makes the Torah come alive.

It is clear that people need guidance in ethical behavior...Messianic halakhah can provide specific guidance for those who seek it. It can provide a basis for discussion, for probing in the direction of finding godly solutions to ethical questions, as well as for ceremonial situations, helping to establish communal norms—norms, not hard-and-fast rules! A balance must be struck between heavyhandedly imposing halakhic decisions on the believing community and carelessly failing to give adequate guidance, with the result that each must fend for himself.[16]

It is safe to say that Stern’s view would be entirely compatible with Matthew 23:2-3 being interpreted along the lines of the scribes and Pharisees, and their various successors, as possessing a consultative authority. Neither blind obedience nor outright dismissal of the traditions present in the Oral Torah should be permitted by today’s Messianic people.

The Zondervan publication How Jewish is Christianity? 2 Views on the Messianic Movement (2003), includes a variety of perspectives, widely for and against the modern Messianic Jewish movement, along with some nuances interwoven within. The issue of Rabbinic authority is only scantly touched on, but given the wide distribution of a publication like this, it is important that we note what has been stated about Matthew 23:2-3. Messianic Jewish theologian John Fischer, in responding to a Christian detractor about the Messianic Jewish movement, states per Matthew ch. 23, “Yeshua condemns not the oral law, not the Pharisees, but only the hypocrites among some Pharisees...Furthermore, in the beginning of Matthew 23 (verses 2-3), Yeshua pointedly instructs his followers to practice all that the Pharisees teach!”[17] Fisher makes note of some Talmudic discussion where various Pharisees are critical of themselves (b.Sotah 20a-22b; b.Yevamot 16a), and so his remark about not all Pharisees being chastised in Matthew ch. 23 should be well taken. The publication How Jewish is Christianity? was not the place to hammer out all of the details on what Yeshua meant in Matthew 23:2-3, but a Messianic Jewish figure such as Fischer would be among those who would probably give a higher place to the Oral Torah and Rabbinic tradition, beyond a consultative sense.

One useful study, which need not escape the attention of any examiner of Matthew 23:2-4, is the article “Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse Their Halakhah?” by Noel S. Rabbinowitz, appearing in the September 2003 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS).[18] Rabbinowitz goes into detail, summarizing many of the interpretations present (some of which were summarized in the previous section of this article). He notably recognizes how it is inescapable that Matthew 23:2-4 affords some level of authority to the First Century Pharisees, and also how trying to separate out Pharisaical authority into the realms of civil law or religious law would not be at all useful. He also interjects the important point of how Yeshua’s seeming endorsement of Pharisaical authority echoes the instruction of Deuteronomy 17:11,[19] the key passage in the Torah upon which the Pharisees would have based their office:

The separation of the Jewish world into civil and religious spheres is artificial and cannot be sustained. A better solution is to interpret Jesus’ command to do what the Pharisees teach to mean simply that—the disciples are to recognize the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees because they sit in the Seat of Moses.

Many scholars find this thesis unacceptable and...insist that Jesus is not issuing a sincere command. Jesus’ choice of words seems to make this conclusion unlikely, however. His command to do what the Pharisees teach invokes Deut 17:11, the very text upon which the authority of the Sanhedrin, the Sages, and later rabbis is based. In verse 11, Moses instructs the [Israelites] to submit to the legal rulings of the priest or the judge of each generation...

....Jesus’ command to do and keep whatever the Pharisees say clearly resembles this passage and it is unlikely that his choice of words was merely coincidental. If Jesus did not intend for his listeners to take his command seriously, it is unlikely that he would have used language invested with such legal and binding authority.[20]

Rabbinowitz notes that Yeshua followed some significant traditions of Pharisaical Judaism, such as those pertaining to the order of service on Shabbat in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21),[21] or the order of the Passover sedar (Matthew 26:26-28).[22] The conclusion of Rabbinowitz’ lengthy article is that the Messiah upheld Pharisaical authority in principle, but that a hyper-literal, or even just literal, pressing of “all” in Matthew 23:3, was not our Lord’s intent:

Because of the fact that Jesus attacks the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and for their corrupt teaching in so many other biblical passages, many scholars find [my] interpretation completely unacceptable. I have argued, however, that this apparent contradiction can be resolved by understanding that Jesus did not mean for his disciples to literally do “all” that the Pharisees taught. He meant rather that they were to obey their teachings regarding the Torah and halakhah in principle, a fact supported by Jesus’ own basic observance of oral tradition.

...I have suggested that Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaic hypocrisy cannot be reduced to a black-and-white rejection of their authority. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, not because of their halakhah, but because they had forsaken the grater commandments of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

On one level, the Pharisees did genuinely wish to keep the Law. By means of oral tradition, they labored to keep the Torah at the center of Jewish life and worship. As those who sat in the Seat of Moses, the Pharisees provided the Jewish people with practical answers and specific instructions regarding how one actually fulfilled the commands of the Torah.

On a deeper level, however, the inner motives of the Pharisees often betrayed them, and their zeal for the Torah frequently became self-serving. When Jesus rebukes the Pharisees in the woes section of Matthew 23, he reveals that their wrong teachings were a manifestation of their wrong motives. In their heart, these Pharisees yearned for the praise of people, but in their minds, they believed they honored God. They meticulously paid their tithe of dill and cummin, but they neglected the weightier provisions of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt 23:23).[23]

Rabbinowitz’ position is certainly one which may be said to support Yeshua affording the Pharisees a consultative authority in Matthew 23:2-3.

While his book Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism (2005) was widely focused on issues of ecclesiology, and not necessarily Torah halachah, Mark S. Kinzer nonetheless did comment on the seeming connection between Deuteronomy 17:10-11 and Yeshua’s word of Matthew 23:1-3. He not only concludes that the Messiah widely recognized the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, but implies that such authority needs to also be recognized of their Jewish successors:

Seeing only the anti-Pharisaic polemics of Matthew and not his own proto-rabbinic orientation, most commentators have been unable to make sense of this text. This perspective has also prevented them from recognizing a biblical allusion in the text [to Deuteronomy 17:10] and its radical implications...Whatever synagogue architecture was like in Yeshua’s day, the “seat of Moses” in this verse refers primarily to the correspondence between the high court of Deuteronomy 17 and the role of Moses during Israel’s time in the wilderness. Thus, Matthew’s Yeshua states that the Pharisaic teachers occupy the position of the judges in Deuteronomy 17—they are the legitimate heirs of Moses and have authority to interpret and apply the Torah in their generation as Moses did in his. This way of reading Matthew 23:1-3 is confirmed by what Yeshua says about how their words are to be received: “carefully observe all that they say to you.” This is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 17:10: “carefully observe all that they instruct you to do.”

The importance of this text for our purpose cannot be overestimated. Yeshua here employs the same verse to justify the halakhic legitimacy of the Pharisaic teachers as is later used in rabbinic tradition to justify the halakhic legitimacy of the rabbis. As in the examples cited above, it is highly likely that this community reflects Matthew’s intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the early rabbinic movement and his own affirmation of much of its traditional teaching. The rabbinic and Matthean reading suits well Deuteronomy 17’s original function within the Pentateuch as presented above. Though Matthew 23 proceeds to castigate those very same Pharisees for unworthy conduct, this fact only throws the initial verses into bolder relief. Matthew apparently approves of the central Pharisaical tradition but cannot stomach the Pharisees themselves...[24]

In Kinzer’s succeeding volume, Israel’s Messiah and the People of God (2011), he goes into some further detail regarding Pharisaical authority. Kinzer is entirely right to emphasize how while various Pharisees are noted to be opponents of Yeshua, at the same time “many Pharisees invite Yeshua to their homes—even though he regularly uses such occasions to admonish them [Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-52; 14:1-24].”[25] He also states, correctly, “Some Pharisees warn Yeshua that Herod Antipas wants to arrest him and have him executed; thus, they evidently seek to protect him from harm [Luke 13:31-33]. Yeshua tells some Pharisees that ‘the reign of God is among you’—and this may imply that God is especially among them because they are Pharisees [Luke 17:20-22].”[26]

It is easily discerned that not only does Kinzer does afford a high level of authority to the Oral Torah in the lives of today’s Messianic Jews, but that he is also probing many religious and philosophical issues that the broad Messianic community is too widely unaware of:

What do we, as twenty-first century Messianic Jews, make of all of this? In order to form theological judgments based on this biblical analysis, we must go beyond mere biblical analysis and examine the historical developments of the last two millennia. Is it really possible for us to acknowledge the authority of a tradition that has emphatically denied the messiahship of Yeshua? Can we see this tradition as embodying “Oral Torah,” carrying on the work of Moses from one generation to the next?

The halakhic authority given to Yeshua’s followers encourages us in our efforts to develop a distinctly Messianic Jewish way of life. However, it is not sufficient to enable us to accomplish that task. This is the case for three important reasons. First, according to Matthew, the halakhic authority of the messianic community operates within the context of the Pharisaic scribes. Each is apparently incomplete without the other. Second, because the Torah-observant Jewish Yeshua movement faded away in the early centuries of the Common Era, no continuous tradition of Messianic Jewish halakhah exists. We do not know in any detail how the early Jewish Yeshua-movement kept Shabbat, kashrut, or the laws of family purity. However, even if we did, we would still not have the living memory of an ongoing community’s attempt to live out the Torah and pass it on to their children through the changing circumstances of the past twenty centuries. Such a living memory is essential to the Jewish people’s observance of the Torah. Third, the Jewish community as a whole decided to accept the halakhic authority of the rabbinic movement. Given the divinely appointed role of the community in establishing and confirming the legitimate successors to Moses, we cannot ignore rabbinic tradition, even if we believe that we also have a crucial contribution to make in the halakhic process.[27]

A significant part of Kinzer’s theological work is to establish in the minds of many that Messianic Jews can be faithful to Yeshua and to their Jewish heritage, and as such recognize the value of the Oral Torah and traditional halachah. Because no ancient Messianic Jewish halachah exists from the First-Third Centuries, Messianic Jews should not go out and totally make up their own orthopraxy, but can surely follow those many customs and traditions established by wider Judaism. Where some might stop and think that Kinzer is making a blanket endorsement of Orthodox Judaism, he is keen to note how “I have devoted much time and effort to argue for a conclusion that would be the starting point for other forms of Judaism. I am not here advocating any particular perspective on what the Oral Torah says to us today. Taking my conclusion as a premise, one could develop an Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist Messianic approach to Jewish tradition.”[28] Many would consider parts of Kinzer’s overall theology to be semi-liberal to liberal,[29] so it is highly doubtful that he would endorse an Orthodox halachah, as opposed to something more akin to Conservative Judaism. Suffice it to say, Kinzer’s approach to the Oral Torah and role of various Rabbinic authorities would go beyond the consultative authority approach that is proposed in this analysis, and he does represent the orientation of a fair number of Messianic Jewish leaders.

A final perspective to be noted, which by far is probably the most extreme on paper that I have encountered to date (by 2013), is represented by the Israeli Messianic Jew Tsvi Sadan, in his article “Halachic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community,” appearing in the Winter 2012 edition of Messiah Journal, published by the popular ministry First Fruits of Zion.[30] Sadan’s perspective of the place of the Oral Torah not only goes far beyond affording the Pharisaical authorities and their successors a consultative role, or even sifting through twenty or so centuries of Rabbinic materials per the more moderate-to-progressive branches of Judaism. Sadan affords the Oral Torah an almost equal place with the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament itself, stating,

“Because the New Testament teaches Yeshua’s followers to observe Torah, it also necessarily teaches to keep the tradition of the fathers, or the Oral Law. I understand that many...today are deeply suspicious of this concept. Nevertheless, we must understand that the Oral Law is also part and parcel of the New Testament.”[31]

While Sadan does think that the Oral Torah and the Sages have an almost equal role for today’s Messianic Jews, he does, at least, acknowledge that there will be instances where Rabbinic authority is to be rejected in favor of the Messiah’s authority. Yet, Sadan does seem to indicate that such Rabbinic authority must be followed by Messianic Jewish people, unless directly contradicted by Yeshua or the Apostles. He summarizes,

“Under what circumstances rabbinic authority can be overruled?...Those who demand that we reject this authority are actually calling for the rejection of our Jewish identity. Considering such an alternative, the obligation to overrule rabbinic authority is imposed on us only when it is clearly and unambiguously opposed to Yeshua, his teaching, and that of the apostles. Otherwise nothing should prevent us from acting in accordance with Jewish tradition, which embodies the wisdom of thousands of years.”[32]

An example provided by Sadan, of a place where Messianic Jews should disobey standing Jewish halachah, pertains to the rescue of a New Testament from a fire:

“There is halachah that says that a New Testament is not saved from a fire, which means that it is not sacred. The Torah scroll, on the other hand, must be saved even at the risk of losing one’s life (b.Shabbat 116a). Our halachah, if we will ever have any, must rule that the New Testament must be treated in the same way as the Torah scroll. The significance of such a halachah is that it recognizes the New Testament as part of Jewish holy scriptures.”[33]

(Sadan notably, though, does not state if this is a modern Hebrew New Testament translation, or some edition of the canonical Greek New Testament, which is to be saved from a fire.)

Sadan is one who is forthright, however, in equating all or most Jewish identity, with the Jewish people essentially following all of the Oral Torah, with few questions raised. Sadan would be one who likely favors today’s Messianic Jews living in accordance with Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox Judaism. While he represents a small number of Messianic Jews in both the Land of Israel, as well as the Diaspora, his view will be one to recognize at present, as being held a number of notable individuals, congregations, and organizations.

Just like Judaism itself has its major branches such as Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform—and each approaches the Oral Torah, the Sages, and post-Biblical ancient Jewish literature a bit differently—so should we expect there to never be a monolith emerge within the Messianic Jewish movement regarding how it implements Yeshua’s word of Matthew 23:2-3. We should expect, as Messianic Judaism goes through some changes in the future, to see a greater awareness for a place of Rabbinic authority arise. Overall, though, too many of today’s Messianic Jewish individuals and leaders have too high a regard for the Apostolic Scriptures, and for Yeshua Himself, to really adopt anything other than affording the Pharisees and their successors a fair level of consultative authority, and one which will most likely mirror the more moderate-to-progressive branches of Judaism at that.

For certain, there should be a greater respect emerging by Messianic Jews for the traditions of their ancestors, but this should be highly tempered by the interests of the good news of salvation in Yeshua as well. The Rabbinic tradition will and should be a factor in determining halachah and theology, but most of Messianic Judaism will never consider it to be at an almost equal level of Holy Scripture. To its significant credit, the Messianic Jewish movement, on the whole, has been too influenced by evangelical Protestantism to allow for that. But, even evangelical Protestantism, despite various limitations at times, has sought to understand the Bible in its world—and Protestant scholasticism has a high view of the historical value of the major bodies of Second Temple literature originating from the Pharisees.

The Hebrew Yeshua versus the Greek Jesus?

Many individuals in the broad Messianic movement, when encountering a number of the Messianic Jewish views of Matthew 23:2-3 which we have just summarized—particularly those which go beyond a consultative authority for the Rabbinic tradition—have been at a total loss of what to do. Many have seen the views where various Messianic Jewish individuals, and/or their assemblies, have basically thought that they need to follow virtually all of the Oral Torah and Orthodox Judaism, and have been a bit disturbed. Over the past eight to nine years (2005-2013), the alternative perspective to this extreme, which has been quite popularized throughout the more independent Messianic and Hebrew/Hebraic Roots sectors, has been for Torah obedient Messianic people to completely reject the scribes and Pharisees—and by extension a wide array of mainline Jewish traditions and customs as having any value—on the basis of what is communicated via the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, derived from the anti-missionary work Evan Bohan.[34] This Fourteenth Century text contains some variant readings, which have certainly stirred many people:

“Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and the sages sit. Now all which (they) say to you keep and do; but (according to) their ordinances and deeds do not do because they say and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3, HGM).[35]

[2] al kisei Moshe yeshvu haPerushim v’ha’chakamim [3] v’ata kol asher yomar l’khem shimru v’asu u’v’taqanotehem u’ma’aseihem al ta’asu she’heim omrim v’heim einam osim

A huge amount of attention has been given to a minority reading present in this text, kol asher yomar, “all that he says.”[36] It has been concluded, on the basis of this reading of Matthew 23:2-3, that Yeshua the Messiah acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees occupied the seat of Moses, but that they were to only follow what “he,” meaning Moses, said. Thus, any rulings issued by the scribes and Pharisees were to be largely rejected and ignored.

This perspective has been highly popularized since 2005, via the book actually entitled, The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus. Its author, Nehemia Gordon, is a Karaite Jew, being part of a sect from the Middle Ages that accepts the canon of the Tanach or Hebrew Bible as authoritative, but rejects the Oral Torah as authoritative.[37] Gordon used the variant reading in the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reconstructed by George Howard, “he says,” to support the premise that Yeshua of Nazareth was a kind of proto-Karaite. Gordon’s basic position regarding Matthew 23:2-3, as appears in his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, is summarized as follows:

(2) The Pharisees and sages sit upon the seat of Moses. (3) Therefore, all that he says to you, diligently do, but according to their reforms (takanot...) and their precedents (ma’asim...) do not do, because they talk but they do not do.

In the Hebrew Matthew, Yeshua is telling his disciples not to obey the Pharisees. If their claim to authority is that they sit in Moses’ Seat, then diligently do as Moses says!

To understand what happened, we must compare the Hebrew with the Greek. In the Greek, the disciples were commanded to obey “all that they [the Pharisees] says,” but in the Hebrew, Yeshua told his disciples to obey “all that he [Moses] says.” These are two fundamentally different messages, but in Hebrew, this is a difference of only one single letter! In Hebrew, “he says” is yomar... while “they say” is yomru.... The only difference between the two in an un-pointed Hebrew text is the addition of the extra vav... in yomru... “they say.” That this is the basis for a completely different message is amazing because vav w is one the smallest letters in the Hebrew alphabet, really just a single stroke! The addition of this tiny letter changes Yeshua’s message from an instruction to obey Moses (“all that he says”) to a commandment to obey the Pharisees (“all that they say”). In contrast, the Greek difference between “he says” (eipei...) and “they say” (eiposin...) is a much larger difference...

After instructing his disciples to do as Moses says, Yeshua continues that they must not do according to the takanot..., and ma’asim... of the Pharisees. These two Hebrew words, takanot and ma’asim, are loaded with meaning when talking about the Pharisees....

According to the Hebrew Matthew, Yeshua is warning his disciples not to look to the ma’asim, the precedents of the Rabbis, as the standard for proper behavior. Nor are they to follow the takanot, the invented laws of the Rabbis. Instead they are to listen to what Moses says, because after all the Rabbinic claim to authority is that they sit in Moses’ seat.[38]

From a textual standpoint, just regarding the Fourteenth Century C.E. materials from which the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was hypothetically assembled, Gordon’s view of yomar or “he says,” and not yomru or “they say,” being the correct reading for Matthew 23:2-3, has been challenged. A Messiah Magazine article from Fall 2005, entitled “Original Hebrew Matthew Discovered?”, which was published a number of months after Gordon’s book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus was released, was quite critical not only of the so-called Shem Tov edition of Matthew that he used, but more importantly of his methodology of favoring the reading “he says”:

At the very crux of Gordon’s argument lies the reading of Matthew 23:2-3 in two ShTb manuscripts. Instead of Yeshua saying, “...all that they tell you...,” these ShTb manuscripts have, “...all that he tells you...,” supposedly in reference to Moses on whose chair the Pharisees are seated. Gordon assumes that this must be the authentic, original reading of Matthew 23:3, and proceeds to correct the Greek to what it “should have read.” Yet, as he mentions in a footnote (p. 49, n. 57), of the nine extant copies of ShTb Matthew, six of them contain the plural reading, “...all that they tell you...” (One fragmentary copy does not contain 23:3). Thus, the reading, “all that he tells you,” upon which Gordon bases his argument, is read by only two of the recognizes ShTb manuscripts. What is more, of these two manuscripts, one is clearly a copy of the other, meaning that only a single witness exists to support Gordon’s argument. Gordon fails to mention that two other Hebrew Matthews (Münster and du Tillet) both read the plural here, as do all other known manuscripts (including Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, and Latin, etc.) save one 5th Century Latin text (Corbeiensis II).

The bottom line of all this is quite apparent: against the thousands of manuscripts that bear witness to Matthew 23, as well as the majority of Hebrew manuscripts that contain this text (including six manuscripts of the ShTb itself), Gordon opts for a variant reading from a single witness found in a manuscript that is manifestly of poor textual quality. It appears that the reason Gordon would receive a reading against such a preponderance of evidence is that it fits his Karaite theology...[39]

Because of its hype-laden title of The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, Nehemia Gordon has become quite a sensation in much of the independent Hebrew/Hebraic Roots world, speaking at many conferences and gatherings—despite the fact that Gordon is not at all a purported Believer in Yeshua of Nazareth! The various reasons as to why Gordon has become so popular have both theological and spiritual dynamics to them, although some of Gordon’s biggest “fans,” if you will, think that he is quite close to recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah. Yet the Karaite Nehemiah Gordon is probably having more of a spiritual influence on those who are purported to be Believers in Israel’s Messiah, than such people are having on one who is openly a non-Believer...

Given the fact that Gordon’s book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus has now had over eight years (2005-2013) to circulate throughout the Messianic world, the main base of enthusiasm he has had, has been obviously from widely non-Jewish, fundamentalist sectors—typically composing people who eschew Christianity, Judaism, and a wide level of formal Biblical scholarship. Gordon has been able to capitalize on the ignorance of many people on composition issues regarding the Gospel of Matthew,[40] but most significantly unfair prejudices held toward the ancient Pharisees, Judaism, and Jewish tradition in general. Gordon’s place of influence has only helped to continue, not stop, the idea present among many people that they do not need to consider a possible role for ancient tradition, and contemporary Biblical literature, in developing theology and orthopraxy. Gordon’s view of Matthew 23:2-3 failed to take into any significant account areas of theology and halachah, where Yeshua was quite compliant with the mainline Pharisaism of His day, as significant corrections were most properly and directly issued in responses to him, by teachers like Tim Hegg.[41]

Gordon’s conclusions have been too simplistically accepted, by too many people, without enough critical thinking. The idea, for example, that in the canonical Greek version of Matthew 23:2-3, Yeshua the Messiah would endorse every single ruling of the human Pharisees, could only be a conclusion drawn by a strict fundamentalist reader. Yeshua the Messiah no more endorsed a blind obedience or following of the Pharisees, than the Apostle Paul or Apostle Peter expected First Century Believers to blindly adhere to the Roman government (Romans 13:1-7;[42] Titus 3:1;[43] 1 Peter 2:13[44]). Obviously, as Biblical history reveals, the Roman government was certainly disobeyed by the First Century Messiah followers, when the interests of the good news of salvation in Yeshua were significantly at stake.

That Yeshua afforded the Pharisees some place of authority for the halachah of His First Century followers cannot be denied. Yet, the Apostles themselves also had authority in determining halachah (Matthew 16:19)[45]—and they clearly did clash in various areas with the scribes and Pharisees, given the salvation-historical significance of the death and resurrection of their Lord! Many of the negative things that the scribes and Pharisees believed about females, and those from the nations at large, were clearly rejected by those like the Apostle Paul (cf. Galatians 3:28 contra. t.Berachot 6:18), in favor of a much more egalitarian and inclusive view of Jews and non-Jews, and men and women, within the Body of Messiah.[46]

The influence that Gordon—a non-Believer—has had in further splintering the broad Messianic movement, on non-essentials, is quite distressing and even infuriating. In Matthew 23:3, Yeshua did say of the Pharisees, “do not do according to their deeds,” and then He listed a number of key examples of where His halachah and theirs were in conflict. These included the scribal and Pharisaical leaders putting various burdens onto the people (Matthew 23:4), their wanting to be noticed via their inappropriate usage of tzit-tzits/tassels and tefillin/phylacteries (Matthew 23:5), their abuse of religious titles (Matthew 23:6-10), their style of leadership which kept people out of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 23:13), their rancid proselytism (Matthew 23:15), their inappropriate offerings at the Temple (Matthew 23:16-22), and their subversion of justice (Matthew 23:23). Yeshua accused the Pharisaical leadership of being “blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24), and stated that they were “like whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27), associating them with those who had murdered Israel’s Prophets (Matthew 23:29-35).

Yeshua’s criticism of those leaders who sat in the seat of Moses was their hypocrisy, and their disregard for the Torah’s weightier matters such as “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). The issues that Yeshua had with the scribal and Pharisaical leaders in Matthew ch. 23, are not, however, the issues that disciples of Nehemia Gordon have had. The types of issues that various Messianic persons, who have welcomed Gordon’s interpretation of Matthew 23:2-3, have with the Pharisees and their Jewish successors, tend to be over issues like: the traditional Jewish calendar,[47] Judaism’s widescale avoidance of using the Divine Name of God YHWH/YHVH,[48] and mainline Jewish traditions like men wearing the kippah/yarmulke in religious services,[49] among others. Some of the rhetoric which has been witnessed against both Jewish and Messianic Jewish practice, in the widely non-Jewish quarters of the Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement, can not only be credited to the conclusions witnessed in Gordon’s book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus—but can also be said to be a major cause of much Messianic Jewish hostility to non-Jewish Believers in their midst, per the fear that they might oppose mainline Jewish practices via an inappropriate interpretation of Matthew 23:2-3.[50] It is fair to say in 2005, that Gordon’s teaching on Matthew 23:2-3 has been applied in ways which would merit his followers and their attitudes the same sort of criticism that Yeshua actually issued to the scribal and Pharisaical leaders. Those who have accepted Gordon’s view of Matthew 23:2-3 have been scarcely concerned with “the weightier matters of Torah—justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23, TLV).

Do not establish proper rulings?

Toward a Fair Approach of the Rabbinic Tradition

Many in today’s Messianic community—Messianic Jewish Believers and non-Jewish Believers—rightly look to the example of the Jewish people for insight into following God’s Torah. This is good, because Judaism indeed has much valuable insight and understanding concerning God’s commandments.[51] Yet, while not rejecting the validity of the Torah—unlike much of Christianity—the Jewish people have placed a fence around many of the commandments. The Mishnah asserts, for example, “Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah” (m.Avot 1:1).[52] The Pharisees, Sages, and other Rabbis have added customs and traditions that have enhanced the keeping of God’s commandments, but then various others that have skewed or negated some. The most significant and grievous mistake is that most Jews, unfortunately, have rejected Yeshua the Messiah as the Eternal Savior.

When looking to Judaism for spiritual insight, every Messianic Believer must use some degree of discernment and caution. The Jewish people have accumulated over two millennia of study, obedience, and communal experience surrounding the Torah. To reject all Jewish interpretations and insight is wrong. Jewish perspectives on the Tanach Scriptures are surely considered and consulted in Biblical Studies, along with Christian perspectives, when a viable interpretation is needed. This is even more true of areas of Torah instruction that have been largely kept by Judaism, and largely ignored by Christianity, throughout the centuries.

While Jewish perspectives and traditions should not be considered authoritative as Scripture, recognizing that they have a consultative authority for the Messianic community is something that will do far more to bring God’s people together than keep them apart. Learning how to do this, though, is an absolute art and science. Unfortunately, a significant number within today’s widely independent Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement (especially in Two-House sub-movement!)[53] are not at all up to this task, and lack the proper abilities, skills, and temperament to do so. And, a number of people in Messianic Judaism have been caught advocating that Rabbinical authority be pretty much blindly followed. Extremes and fundamentalist approaches have to be steadfastly avoided!

Why do many non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic community think that they can just widely cast aside the Pharisees, associated Jewish literature from the Biblical period,[54] and flat reject a majority of Jewish interpretations and applications of the Torah?

Much of what one encounters in the rejection of the Pharisees and mainline Jewish tradition, in the independent sectors of the Messianic movement, is a great deal of significance given to a passage of the Torah like Deuteronomy 4:2. Within this verse, Moses told the Ancient Israelites, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” The primary emphasis of this commandment, more than anything else, is that God Himself was the only One who could tell the community of Israel what to do and not to do. This was most serious given the overall message of Deuteronomy opposing idolatry and sexual immorality in the Promised Land, which the people were preparing to enter.[55] Yet, a noticeable number of individuals within the independent Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement, also think that Deuteronomy 4:2 quantitatively rules out any Jewish tradition from being recognized as a legitimate expression of Torah observance, to be followed by (any of) God’s people.

However, if we were to hold to a strict interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:2, then this likely means that when situations arise which require the faith community to make judgments on various issues or circumstances which are not directly or indirectly addressed in the Torah, or any part of Scripture, that any decision could possibly be acceptable. In the independent Messianic community today this has led to many interpretations of the Torah that are foreign to mainline Judaism, and can be quite offensive to Jewish people. It can lead to everyone doing what he or she feels is right (cf. Judges 17:6; 21:25), with confusion about what to do often abounding. (Even various evangelical Christians on the outside wonder about what they witness.)

It can be irresponsible to strongly assert that traditions are not at all commanded by God, when the Torah itself later says that if a matter arises within Israel, that His people are to follow the rulings of the priests and judges whom He has recognized as occupying positions of authority. Deuteronomy 17:8-11, as has already been noted, would have been a major place in the Torah that the ancient Pharisees of Matthew 23:2-3 would have based their office of leadership:

“If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case. You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left.”

The clause of interest is al-pi ha’Torah, “According to the tenor of the law” (YLT),[56] which is given to those needing a definite judgment issued regarding a matter.

Some, as previously analyzed, would make the argument that every Rabbinical ruling made, or almost every ruling made, in Orthodox Judaism today needs to be followed by the Messianic community at large—but this definitely goes too far. At the same time, though, Deuteronomy 17:11 does give a berth of authority to those in Jewish religious leadership which needs to be considered—with what we have argued should be regarded as a consultative authority. Many within today’s Messianic Judaism believe that its Torah observance should parallel the major halachic matters which bind the broad Jewish community together (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform). This would include those areas of when it celebrates the appointed times (including Chanukah and Purim), how people would generally dress in a congregational environment, how people generally eat kosher, and other traditions which are beneficial to the broad community at large. Of course, there is certainly internal variance witnessed in Messianic Judaism, just as there is variance among various Jewish sects today.

If a person in the independent Messianic movement has never been exposed to Messianic Judaism, or if someone is naturally predisposed to “do his own thing” (or even worse, “buck the {proverbial} system”) and not respect any established order, then it should not be surprising to see a strong impetus to develop applications of the Torah that are (absolutely) foreign to mainstream Judaism (or at least Reform and Conservative Judaism). For many complicated reasons, both psychological and spiritual, outward un-conformity is something easily discerned within much of the independent Messianic world “out there.”

The instruction in Deuteronomy 17:11 is that God’s people are to, “According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left” (ATS). We should not all believe that what is implied here is a blind obedience to the ancient rulings left by all of the Sages and Rabbis of Judaism. Messianic Believers have to ultimately evaluate their rulings against the canonical Word of God—and via the impetus of the Holy Spirit—to see if something aligns with the ethos or general tenor of Scripture, as most major rulings relate to ethical value judgments which the written Scriptures may not directly address. With all things, we have to see whether it parallels God’s written Word, and enhances our relationship and walk with Yeshua. There are clearly things that have come down through history that can deter our walk with Him, but then there are many things which can surely enhance it. Each of us must use proper discernment and consideration—in our appeal to God for His Divine will.

What is perhaps most important more than anything else is that the rulings anticipated by Deuteronomy 17:8-11 have to often be made by recognized, qualified spiritual leaders of the community of faith at large. The Torah is designed to be lived out in a community, as opposed to an exclusive “one-on-one” basis between oneself and God. A prime example of this witnessed today is that when you see kosher-for-Passover food items, they often say “consult your rabbi” on the packaging. This indicates in some way that there is debate over whether or not an item is kosher for Passover, and that the ultimate determination should go to your local rabbi, who can evaluate what your personal or family circumstances are.

This can be a difficult concept for many non-Jewish Messianics, who come from evangelical Christian backgrounds, to accept, because many are often not used to their pastor making “rulings” on what Believers should do or not do concerning God’s commandments. Many non-Jewish Believers are taught in church that our relationship with God is just between us and Him. While this is ultimately true, each of us is also in corporate, covenant association with other members of the faith community. Just like many probably went to a pastor for spiritual guidance, prayer, counseling, or just help regarding an issue, and took his advice and followed it, so can the rulings of the Jewish Rabbis apply. Just as many of us would expect an evangelical Christian pastor to be anointed by the Lord, and for his words to carry authoritative weight, so can the rulings of the Jewish Rabbis.

Of course, as with all things, we should never follow the opinions of a Christian pastor blindly, nor should we ever follow the rulings of the Jewish Rabbis blindly, either. We have to test everything against God’s Word, to make sure that it aligns with the character of our Heavenly Father, and we have to see if it is something that enhances our walk with Him, rather than takes us away from Him. More than anything else, we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis, and recognize the fact that there is a great deal of “grey” when it comes to interpretation and application. In today’s emerging Messianic community, hopefully we can find a proper balance between Scripture and tradition, where neither is considered unimportant. We should also pray to have good local Messianic leaders be raised up by the Lord, who can issue sound decisions for their own communities and the issues they face (cf. Matthew 16:19). Per the issues surrounding Matthew 23:2-3, the Pharisees are deserving of a little more respect than they might have at present.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 16

[1] Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13.

[2] Acts 5:29.

[3] The Pharisaical Jewish tradition is widely represented in ancient bodies of literature such as the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, and Midrashim. It is also detectable in works such as those of the philosopher Philo and historian Josephus, and also various writings of the Pseudepigrapha.

Other bodies of literature, germane to the broad First Century period, would include the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Jewish Qumran community, as well as various classical philosophical and historical works of Greece and Rome.

Consult the Theological Resources: Biblical History, Contemporary Literature, and Other Religions sub-section of the TNN Online website <http://tnnonline.net/resources> for a further listing.

[4] BDAG, 829.

[5] “There was another case of a gentile who came before Shammai. He said to him, ‘Convert me on the stipulation that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot.’ He drove him off with the building cubit that he had in his hand. He came before Hillel: ‘Convert me.’ He said to him, ‘“What is hateful to you, to your fellow don’t do.” That’s the entirety of the Torah; everything else is elaboration. So go, study’” (b.Shabbat 31a; The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary).

[6] Leon Morris, Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 573.

[7] M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in Leander E. Keck, ed. et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 431.

[8] Craig S. Keener, IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), pp 332-333.

[9] Michael J. Wilkins, NIV Application Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), pp 745-746.

[10] Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, Vol 33a (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 659.

[11] D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:472, 473.

[12] R.T. France, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp 859, 890.

[13] The doctrine of resurrection is going to be examined further in the forthcoming publication The Resurrection and the Age to Come by J.K. McKee.

[14] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 67.

[15] David H. Stern, Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past (Clarksville, MD: Lederer Books, 2007), pp 140-154.

[16] Ibid., pp 152-154.

[17] John Fischer, “Response: Yes, We Do Need Messianic Congregations!”, in Louis Goldberg, ed., How Jewish is Christianity? 2 Views on the Messianic Movement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 64.

[18] Noel S. Rabbinowitz, “Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse Their Halakhah?” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 46 No. 3 (2003):423-447. Back issue available for download at <http://www.etsjets.org/JETS>.

[19] “According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11).

[20] Ibid., 432-433.

[21] Ibid., 436.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 446-447.

[24] Mark S. Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), pp 250-251.

[25] Mark S. Kinzer, ed. Jennifer Rosner, Israel’s Messiah and the People of God: A Vision for Messianic Jewish Covenant Fidelity (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2011), 55.

[26] Ibid, pp 55-56.

[27] Ibid., pp 59-60.

[28] Ibid., 61.

[29] Consult the highly useful observations in Michael Wolf and Larry Feldman (2009). Unrecognized Mediation: A False Hope. International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues. Available online via <http://iamcs.org>.

[30] Tsvi Sadan, “Halachic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community” Messiah Journal Issue 109, Winter 2012/5772:13-26.

[31] Ibid., 20.

[32] Ibid., 24.

[33] Ibid.

[34] The presumed legitimacy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has been analyzed in the article/preceding chapter, “Is the Hebrew Matthew an Authentic Document?” by J.K. McKee.

[35] Cf. George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 112-113.

The reconstruction present in Howard’s HGM is to notably be differentiated from the rendering offered by the Franz Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament, produced in the late Nineteenth Century, which has the following for Matthew 23:2-3:

ha’soferim v’haPerushim yoshvim al-kisei Moshe. l’kein kol asher-yomru l’khem shimru v’asu raq hishm’ru me’asot k’ma’asei’hem ki omrim heim v’einam osim.

“The scholars and Prushim sit in the seat of Mosheh, so whatever they tell you, observe and do it. Only be careful not to do their deeds, for they say things but they do not do them” (Aaron Eby and Robert Morris, trans., et. al., The Delitzch Hebrew Gospels: A Hebrew/English Translation [Marshfield, MO: Vine of David, 2011], pp 90-91).

[36] Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 112 where it is noted that yomru, “they say,” actually appears in the majority of the witnesses accessed in reconstructing this hypothetical text.

James Scott Trimm, trans., The Hebraic-Roots Version Scriptures (Northriding, South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 2006), 1223, renders Matthew 23:2-3 as follows: “ On Moshe’s seat sit the scribes and P’rushim. And all that he says to you observe and do. But do not you according to their works, for they say, but do not.” He notably does state how “I have followed the reading [yomar] ‘he says’ found in two Shem Tob manuscripts...The other Shem Tob manuscripts as well as the DuTillet and Munster Hebrew, have [yomru] ‘they say.’”

[37] For a brief review of Karaite Judaism, consult “Karaites, Karaism,” in David Bridger, ed. et. al., The New Jewish Encyclopedia (West Orange, NJ: Behrman House, 1976), 263; Daniel J. Lasker, “Karaites,” in R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Widoger, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp 391-392; “Karaism,” in Geoffrey Wigoder, ed. et. al., The New Encyclopedia of Judaism (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Publishing House, 2002), 441; Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2132.

[38] Nehemia Gordon, The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus: New Light on the Seat of Moses from Shem-Tov’s Hebrew Matthew (Hilkiah Press, 2005), pp 48-49, 52-53.

[39] Brian J. Tebbitt and Tim Hegg. “Original Hebrew Gospel Discovered?” Messiah Magazine Issue 86, Bamidbar 5765 (2005):31.

[40] If you have not already, do be sure to read the entry on the Gospel of Matthew, appearing in the workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[41] Tim Hegg (2005). Why Nehemia Gordon is Wrong About Matthew 23:3. Torah Resource; (2005). Some Reponses to Nehemia Gordon’s Rejoinder. Torah Resource. Both accessible via <http://torahresource.com>.

[42] “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7).

[43] “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed” (Titus 3:1).

[44] “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority” (1 Peter 2:13).

[45] “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven” (Matthew 16:19, CJB).

[46] Consult the exegesis paper on Galatians 3:28, “Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement,” appearing in the commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

Also consult the relevant sections of the commentaries Ephesians for the Practical Messianic and The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee, and also the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Women in Ministry.”

[47] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Biblical calendar.”

[48] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “YHWH, YHVH.”

[49] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Headcovering Garments.”

[50] Consult the relevant sections of the publication Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel? by J.K. McKee.

[51] It should be observed, in total fairness, that the two main Protestant strands of Calvinism and Wesleyanism, which have always viewed the so-called “moral law” of the Torah as valid instruction for Christians to follow—surely also have much to teach and guide today’s Messianic Believers.

Consult the relevant sections of the author’s book The New Testament Validates Torah.

[52] Leonard Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky, eds. and trans., Pirke Avot: A Modern Commentary on Jewish Ethics (New York: UAHC Press, 1993), 1.

[53] Consult the chapter “Anti-Semitism in the Two-House Movement,” along with a number of specific examples, appearing in the book Israel in Future Prophecy by J.K. McKee.

[54] For an excellent example of where contemporary Messianic people can certainly benefit from such extra-Biblical literature, be sure to consider Sayings of the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective on Pirkei Avot by William Mark Huey.

[55] Consult the article “The Message of Deuteronomy” by J.K. McKee, appearing in the Messianic Fall Holiday Helper.

[56] “according to the mouth of the law” (LITV); “According to the sentence of the law” (KJV).

-17-

Is God's Purpose Bigger

? 2009

J.K. McKee

The spiritual dynamics in today’s Messianic movement are in the process of changing. I think that this is a very good thing.[1] For a number of years I have thought that if some of us do not take a real, hard look at ourselves and what we are doing, then we will not make the kind of impact that our Heavenly Father wants us to make. I have not at all hidden the fact that much of what I have witnessed the past ten years in the Messianic world has not made me happy (1999-2009). We bear all the signs of a faith community that is still very young, still maturing, and still trying to figure out who we are. We do not have the kind of establishment that we need to have, either theologically or spiritually—even though these things are achievable, if we can step back and consider a few things.

Right now as we stand in the middle of the Fall appointed times, who we are or what we are going to be is very much a topic of interest. Today’s Messianic Judaism, where my family got its start in Messianic things in 1995, often sees itself as not being a worldwide, one-faith-for-all movement. It is rather to be perceived as a Jewish renewal movement whereby Jews can come to faith in Messiah Yeshua, retain their Jewishness, and have the safety of a Jewish-friendly environment. Non-Jewish Believers can be involved if they want to be involved, but in many cases they are not encouraged to be involved, or at least encouraged to be involved on a peripheral level.

The independent Messianic movement, which has arisen as many non-Jewish Believers have entered in and have embraced their Hebraic Roots, is all over the board. Some think the end of the world is imminent, and so no time has been spent considering our missiology. Some think that the Messianic movement is to just beat up endlessly on the ills of the Christian Church. Some think that since they could not really do much in terms of leadership or teaching in the Church, that they can actually be “somebody” in the Messianic community. Others think that the Messianic movement is really designed to complete the work of the Reformation, bring all of Israel and the righteous from the nations together, and see a unique faith community of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers emerge. Our ministry has not hidden the fact that this last option is the way that we view things.

Certainly if you were the enemy, and the trajectory of the Scriptures is to have a Grand Commonwealth of Israel of a single, yet diverse people as one in Messiah—where the spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity are to be respected, where people are to be diligently obeying God, and most especially where people are to be fulfilling His mission of loving others and expressing His goodness to the larger world—you would want to get it deterred as much as you could. You would send in voices that would get people off on diverse tangents and rabbit trails (or even rattlesnake holes). And we have certainly seen those in the last ten years, from the Sacred Name agenda, the different calendars followed, the phenomenon of Church bashing, not-so-subtle forms of anti-Semitism, end-time hype and paranoia, etc. You would want to keep people away from a comprehensive study of the Scriptures, and having the Holy Spirit empower their hearts and minds to dissect the Word and adequately evaluate where God’s plan of salvation history is taking us.

If you were the enemy, one of the things you would also absolutely want is prejudice to continue. You would want Jewish Believers to look down on non-Jewish Believers, and desire them to make curious Christians not feel entirely welcome at Messianic Jewish congregations. You would want non-Jewish Believers to feel rejected, and while embracing their Hebraic Roots actually become a little anti-Semitic and look down upon their Jewish Roots and mainline Jewish traditions. You would want males to look down upon females, and assert a hardline patriarchy. You would want those who speak the loudest, but think the most scrambled, to be those who were heard and taken seriously. You would want those who look the most provocative and dress up in various costumes, to be the ones who were seen. You would want those who take the extreme positions to be the ones who determine theology and orthopraxy.

As I have interacted with many Messianic Believers, Jewish and non-Jewish, over the years, they instinctively feel that a time is going to have to come where we move beyond these things. Many people honestly do throw their hands up in the air and ask, “What happened to the love and grace of Yeshua? What happened to the work of the Holy Spirit? Where is God really leading us?”

We are certainly not being led to a place by God where there are two sub-peoples of God: Messianic Jews and evangelical Christians, who are intended to remain entirely separate until the Second Coming. God is certainly not leading us to a place where previous generations of Jews and Christians are demonized, and where teachers and leaders consistently violate the Fifth Commandment in denigrating our ancestors. God is not leading us to a place where we are completely neutered from making a difference in the wider world, as though “Torah observance” only includes keeping Shabbat, the appointed times, and kosher—and not helping people through acts of kindness and mercy.

In the past two years I have been really probing the mind of God to try to figure out what things have been keeping the broad Messianic community from accomplishing its full potential. Some of my thoughts I need to keep to myself a while longer. Yet a few of them can be shared. The unity that all of God’s people are to have—either Jewish or non-Jewish—is to be a testimony of the greater redemption to come to the cosmos in the future (Ephesians 3:10). We really do have the capacity to bring people together where the role of the Jewish people in history can be honored and respected, and where the anti-Semitism of the past can be precisely that: the past. We really can see Jewish people come to faith in the Messiah of Israel, and Christian people take a hold of parts of the Bible that they thought were not for them. We have the capability to be a faith community that is a real force of holiness and righteousness. Many more than just Jews and Christians are to ultimately be affected.

The only way you can see or even think about these things is to recognize that the Messianic movement is much bigger than you or I. It is not something that is exclusively this ministry over here, or that collection of congregations over there. No one person or select clique is in control. It is something that the Creator God has started, to ultimately accomplish some extremely important tasks. God does have to use flawed human beings to accomplish these tasks, and some of these people might have much smaller and more limited views of what the Messianic movement needs to be than He does. Finite mortals frequently fail to consider God’s perspective in bringing things together. Even if the currents and eddies of the religious world sway too much during a five year period (cf. Ephesians 4:14; James 1:6), if the Lord has planned things to occur and culminate over a multi-decade or even multi-century period, then that is not very long to Him at all (cf. Psalm 90:4).

Right now there is a whole lot of talk on the future of the Messianic movement, and the involvement of people like myself: non-Jewish Believers from evangelical Christian backgrounds, who have embraced their Hebraic Roots and desire to live a Torah obedient life. Is this a lifestyle that is God’s intention for all His people as the Spirit writes the commandments onto my heart at a steady pace (Ezekiel 36:27), or have I fallen prey to the insidious words of a Judaizer designed to bring me into legalistic bondage? Am I an equal member of the ekklēsia, via the work of Yeshua, who can be just as close to the Throne of God as any Jewish Believer? While surely I am to acknowledge and repent of previous Christian animosity displayed toward Judaism, and high respect and honor is due toward the Jewish people—am I going to receive any reciprocal respect for the good things that my Christian heritage (Wesleyanism) has accomplished and brings to the table? Can we not all learn from one another as we work together, accomplishing God’s mission?

Some of these questions might not be answerable for the current generation of Messianic Jews. Consider the fact that today’s Messianic Jews are still very much wrestling with what it means to be Jewish, and believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. These are people whose families will often hold funerals for them when they come to faith. These are people who are spurned by the wider Jewish community, so wanting a relatively homogeneous Messianic Jewish congregation of almost all Jewish Believers—a “safe place”—is certainly understandable. Many people are still mending wounds of rejection from their family, carrying a great deal of pain. Messianic Judaism is still a first generation movement, and is still having to work through the basic issues of what it means to be a Jewish Believer, and we all need to be very sensitive to this fact. It simply might not be ready for considering a wider view of what Israel is to become by the eschaton.

God is going to accomplish His purposes as laid out in His Word, even if it takes some more time. But if we at all misdiagnose the trajectory of the Scriptures, significantly shifting emphases and policies and teaching styles to fit the changing market, people are not only going to be hurt, but they are going to be quite upset as well. Extreme sides will only be that much more emboldened, and divisions will continue. Reason and sanity will not only not prevail, but the unique work of the Holy Spirit will be stifled. Free will could deter the timing of what the Lord wants to be achieved.

What will we begin to see take place in the 2010s is a clash of two very similar, but very different ideologies. A complimentarian ideology, which permeates most of today’s Messianic movement, advocates that we are all equal before God, but we all have separate roles. This not only pertains to a couple’s marriage relationship and leadership in the assembly, but also separating, albeit subtly, Jewish and non-Jewish Believers with one being superior to the other. In my opinion, it is not the ideal, because it too often encourages rivalry—and surely the curse that was upon Adam and Eve for them to try to best the other, is surely something that does not need to be perpetuated (Genesis 3:16b; cf. 4:7).

An egalitarian ideology, which our ministry adheres to, advocates that we are all equal before God (Galatians 3:28), and we are to all be in mutual submission to one another (Ephesians 5:21) with no one group possessing total superiority (cf. Colossians 3:11). We all have to work together, and in working together we all value and honor one another the same way that God values us as humans made in His image. A high degree of respect and integration of the Jewish theological tradition, particularly in terms of mainline halachah, is by all means to be included. A Jewish leading in the various divisive areas of Torah that we have witnessed in recent history is to be followed (Romans 3:1-2). At the same time, the Christian theological tradition also contributes to the Messianic movement, particularly in terms of how we conduct body ministry. Both Judaism and Christianity contribute to our Biblical Studies. Within the framework of mutual submission, we should all be able to be the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB) that God wants us to be. All of our strengths should be able to be employed.

From a very young age, my parents modeled to me that an egalitarian ideology can work. My parents were both partners in marriage, working together as leaders of the home, working together in the family business, and even working together in ministry activities in our church. My parents would always fight together when a crisis erupted, and they always informed their two children (at the time) about the ups and downs of family life. They were brutally honest to Jane and me about our finances, and were very clear to instruct us not to share “family business” with outsiders. Because my parents were in mutual submission to one another, I can count on one hand the total number of fights that they had in seventeen years of marriage. And because Kim and Margaret McKee were in mutual submission to one another, I have no questions about the fidelity of either one of them. (And, seeing the example of Mark and Margaret Huey has helped me as well.)

Some of you know that something big is going to click sooner or later in the Messianic movement, where we begin to achieve what the Lord has determined that we achieve. If this movement is to be something bigger than just a Jewish renewal movement, and something bigger than Christians having Passover sedars in their churches and a more positive attitude toward Judaism, then it is going to be achieved by the sovereign hand of the Almighty. Not too many of us like to hear that the positive fruits of the Protestant Reformation did not begin to manifest in significance until the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries—at least 200 years after the time of Martin Luther!

I do not believe it will take two to three centuries for the Messianic movement to sort itself out, but it will take more than weeks or months. It will not be achieved with blogs, YouTube, nor will it be achieved by a teacher writing a single book. It will be achieved with a great deal of work, study, and sanctification. It will be achieved by us making a positive difference in the lives of others. Perhaps most importantly we will accomplish God’s mission when we can each have an internal peace—that even though human people might fail us—God Himself is ultimately on our side!

During the final months of this decade (2000s), things are being stirred around. Hegemonies are being removed. Some are falling, and some are rising. People are talking, speculating, and theorizing what is next.

Between all of the talk and banter, not enough people are inquiring of the Lord as to what is next. Too many people in the past decade, I think, have failed to consider that this whole Messianic “thing” is bigger than a single person or a select few people. What this means is that time is going to fix many of the complicated circumstances in which we find ourselves. Can we wait it out?

What might we do to see His objectives achieved? Take this before the Lord in prayer, as He refines His people for what lies ahead...

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 17

[1]

This article originally appeared in the October 2009 issue of Outreach Israel News.

-18-

A Low Hamartology 2009

J.K. McKee

reproduced from the McHuey Blog

What is the problem with holding to a low theology of sin (hamartology), and how do we see this problem fixed?

I had a very interesting dream the other night, but before I begin, let me say something: I don’t have dreams. This does not mean that I am not spiritual, it just means that the Lord usually communicates to me through prayer or His Word. This dream, however, was pretty interesting. It involved me consciously picking up various books and commentaries in my library, and closely examining and re-examining a passage of Scripture which is very important to us understanding the proper role of the Torah in the life of Believers: Galatians 3:23-25.

What does Galatians 3:23-25 say? Appearing in the New American Standard Update, it reads,

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Some immediate questions jump out at us when we see this verse: Who are the “we” being spoken of? What is “under the law” to mean? In what regard is the Torah a “tutor”?

Some other questions may be asked when we compare this with some other versions. There are Bible translations that describe the Law as a “custodian” (RSV), “disciplinarian” (NRSV), or “guardian” (ESV). But most notably what jumps out at you is the clause in v. 24: “until Christ came” (RSV/NRSV/ESV).

The majority interpretation that I have encountered in Galatians commentaries and other writings on Paul reflect the view that in Galatians 3:23-25, the Apostle is only reflecting on a Jewish experience of having to be subject to the Torah. “We Jews,” Paul would say, “were locked up by the Law of Moses until the time of Christ. We Jews do not have to follow any of this Law any more, which means that it is surely not for you Galatians…”

Fast forwarding to today, the implications of this could be that not only have non-Jewish Believers such as myself been wasting their time for the past fifteen years being Messianic—but that today’s Messianic Judaism, as well, probably needs to just close up shop and fold back into the greater Christian Church with its Law-free gospel and Law-free lifestyle. The Law of Moses was for a previous age, and salvation history has progressed forward. The Torah was only until Messiah, and now that we have Him we no longer need its commandments to regulate our lives…and so on.

Is it at all impossible to view Galatians 3:23-25 differently?

There is always debate among commentators of Paul about who the “we” and the “you” are in various parts of his letters. When he talks about the “we,” is he referring to himself as a member of the Jewish people? Or, is the “we” referring to his collective audience?

I believe there is another way of looking at Galatians 3:23-25, which upholds the significance of the Torah for all of God’s people, aligns with the New Covenant ideal of His commandments being written on the heart by the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 36:25-27), and above all recognizes the centrality of Yeshua the Messiah.

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed” (Galatians 3:23).

The “we” Paul is talking about is himself, his party in Antioch, and the Galatians. In v. 23 Paul talks about their common state as human beings subject to sin, being under the condemnation of the Torah pronounced upon sinners, being shut up as prisoners until the truth of the gospel would illuminate their lives at the right time (cf. Galatians 4:2). The Torah is something that Paul considers the whole world to be accountable to (Romans 3:19b).

What is the role of the Torah for those who are sinners, locked up as prisoners, deserving nothing more than its full brunt of condemnation?

“Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24).

Paul labels the Torah as a paidagōgos, which in a classical sense was a slave or household servant, who guarded young boys to and from their academies. It would be a very strict disciplinarian, sometimes beating or chastising them, until the time when the young men would come of age and the services of the pedagogue would no longer be required. The boys would be mature, and would know foundational life principles as second nature. The fact that Paul is having to use a classical Greek term, to describe a function of the Torah, is a very good indication that this is something that affected the non-Jewish Galatians equally as much as it affected Paul as a good Jew.

The real debate is what is meant by the clause eis Christon, which could be rendered as either “to Christ,” or the more common “until Christ.” Did the Torah only serve as the Jewish pedagogue until the arrival of Yeshua? Or, does it serve as individuals’ pedagogue until a person receives Yeshua into his or her life? Many conclude the former, but if the Torah is to be likened to some kind of child trainer—beating important principles into a person prior to salvation—then it is not unimportant to consider the fact that the Galatians were certainly taught about the Messiah from the Law and the Prophets during Paul’s visit to Galatia in Acts 13:13-14:28.

Paul spoke to both Jewish people and non-Jewish people when he traveled throughout Southern Galatia. It is safe to say that when examining Luke’s record, the Apostle Paul delivered the same basic message wherever he went on this journey. At Pisidian Antioch, he proclaimed on a Shabbat,

“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).

The non-Jewish Galatians were certainly taught this basic message from Paul, no different than those Jews who were attending Sabbath services as they always did, as he declared the good news from the Torah and Prophets. Many of the non-Jewish Galatians had already been involved with a local synagogue in some way or another, and had a basic understanding that the Creator God condemned them for their disobedience to His righteous standard in the Law.

Paul’s message in Pisidian Antioch is no declaration about the Torah being abolished; it is a reflection of how the Torah cannot free a person from all of the condemnation or guilt of sin. The Torah is not enough. The Torah’s standard of holiness and righteousness is quite important. Yet the Torah as a pedagogue can only harshly beat its commandments and standard of righteousness into a non-Believer, who will often feel condemned because he or she is not doing enough. The non-Believer, trying to keep God’s Law, will inevitably fail at times and will be condemned by God’s commandments when they are disobeyed—because we are only human.

This is why, in Galatians 3:24, the Torah is a pedagogue that is to lead us to the Messiah. Having disciplined us enough, showing us that on our own we will carry guilt for disobedience to God’s commandments, we are to be driven to the feet of the cross and plead for redemption. As the gospel of salvation changes our lives, the Torah’s role as a pedagogue for individuals, harshly condemning them, is over:

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:25).

This does not mean that the Torah no longer plays a role in the lives of redeemed people! Redeemed people empowered by the Holy Spirit are to have His commandments written on the heart, as the power of the New Covenant is enacted. Such a redeemed person, filled with the Holy Spirit and with a new nature desiring to obey the Lord, understands the message of 1 John 5:3 very well: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”

Following salvation, the Torah functioning as pedagogue is over for a born again man or woman. What follows is the Torah functioning as the mission statement of a person’s new life in Yeshua, where one can be a part of “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), fulfilling God’s mandate to be a blessing to the world (Galatians 3:8; Genesis 12:2-3). Having the Torah’s principles imbued into the man or woman empowered by God’s Spirit makes the Torah even more important following salvation—not less important. It helps us learn about the character of God, and how we need to learn to act toward sinful humanity with love the same as He has acted toward us (Romans 5:6-9).

In examining various commentaries on Galatians, I certainly saw how interpreters had to engage with the thought that the Torah could serve as an individual’s pedagogue, but then they all pretty much rejected it. The Torah only serving as a Jewish pedagogue until the time of Christ was instead vastly preferred. The Torah serving in any kind of an educational role for people on the path to salvation, being shown their sin nature from the high standard of God’s commandments, was not really welcomed.

I have spent more time in prayer and contemplation than you can know ruminating over this issue, asking myself: Why is this the case? The answer is one that really does grieve me, because I have a huge amount of respect for people who dedicate their lives to teaching and expositing God’s Word—in some cases spending five to ten years writing commentaries on texts like Galatians. These are not immoral or God-less people by any means, but in some places they are misdirected.

Consider how we all get really upset when we encounter various Messianic individuals and ministries who finally come out of the closet and say that they hold to a low Christology, failing to acknowledge the foundational declaration of faith “Yeshua is Lord” (Romans 10:9). Yet the problem with much of today’s evangelical Church is not too dissimilar. Rejecting a view that Galatians 3:23-25 relates to individuals condemned by God’s Torah as sinners, needing to be led to the Messiah, is a reflection that too many of today’s Christians hold to a low hamartology.

Hamartology is the study of sin. Romans 3:20b is clear: “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” God’s Torah contains His gold standard of what He considers sin to be, and it begins with us contemplating the severity of the Ten Commandments. But how many Christians today are really taught what God’s commandments are, much less that disobedience to them brings the condemnation of the Creator down upon them? How many of us have completely misdiagnosed what “under the Law” really means as being subjected to the condemnation of the Torah, a consequence of sin being someone’s master (Romans 6:14)? How many Christians still sit under the Law’s condemnation as (unredeemed) sinners—and may not even know it—because their salvation experience had nothing to do with confessing their violation of even just a few of the Ten Commandments (cf. 1 John 1:9)?

Today, the fact that much of the contemporary Church holds to a low hamartology is evidencing itself very clearly. Entire denominations are splitting over the issue of homosexuality. Now I am the last person who is going to say that gays and lesbians should not be treated as human people, deserving of respect and basic rights. They deserve our love, and not harsh treatment. But if the Church held to a high, or at least a higher, harmartology, then this would not be a debate. Homosexual people would not be ordained clergy, and we would not relegate the Torah’s instructions on sexuality to the dustbin. I look back at the two dominant religious traditions in my family, Wesleyan-holiness and Reformed, and neither one held to the low view of God’s Torah as is often held in the contemporary Church. Yet the denominations that adhere to these ideologies either have already split, or are on the verge of splitting sometime soon.

I think that the reason today’s Galatians commentators do not want to see the necessity of the Torah as ultimately leading people to the Messiah (Romans 10:4, Grk.), is because of a low hamartology. Discounting the role that God’s Torah is to play is condemning sinners, but ultimately having to drive them to the sacrifice of Yeshua for forgiveness, is a severe indictment against much of the contemporary Church. It has failed in its proclamation of the gospel. And then, when people do supposedly get saved by its “Law-free gospel,” God’s Torah plays no role in discipleship, or sometimes even Bible study. It is just an interesting part of archaic Biblical history to them.

Now you can see why I believe so strongly that the Messianic movement possesses great potential to be a force of God’s holiness and righteousness. While many of us have been blessed by having a more hands-on and interactive faith, by remembering Shabbat or the appointed times—we have the responsibility of restoring a high hamartology to the ekklēsia. Keeping God’s Torah is by no means what saves us; the Prophet Isaiah says that our human righteousness is but “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6, KJV). God’s Torah shows us how sinful we are, and how much we need a Savior. But as Believers empowered by the Holy Spirit, following God’s Torah as redeemed people gives us the ability to demonstrate good works and conduct in a world marred by sin, enabling us to show others His love and compassion (Matthew 5:16ff).

Today, we do not know what the emerging Messianic movement is going to emerge into. There are huge debates going on about whether all of the Torah is a standard that all people are affected by, or that only some of the Torah affects non-Jewish Believers like me (and I am not talking about the natural divisions of the Torah’s commandments, nor about the difference between its apodictic and casuistic laws). The Messianic movement cannot at all agree about the equality of all people in the Lord, including not only Jews and non-Jews, but also women (Galatians 3:28). The Messianic movement is behind the curve in much of its theology and scholarship, and its engagement level with various issues and subjects where both Judaism and evangelical Christianity are far ahead of us.

Yet in spite of some of these challenges, I believe that our Heavenly Father has chosen us to do some important work in the days to come. The internal issues will subside and we will see His mandate accomplished. In future decades, our faith community may be some of a small few who hold to a high hamartology, not having relegated the Torah as important only to the time period prior to the Messiah. But neither will we make the mistake of discounting the good Apostle Paul’s instructions as being irrelevant as some do. We will be able, just as he did, to proclaim to everyone how the Lord Yeshua “is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4, TNIV).

There is much work, study, and research that needs to be accomplished—and it is high time that we align our objects with His objectives!

-19-

Considering Messianic Jewish Fears of Replacement and Irrelevance

2013

J.K. McKee

At this still relatively young point in my experience as a Messianic writer and teacher, I have lost count of how many times I have begun an article, or included a statement, along the lines of: The Messianic movement has seen a generation of Jewish people come to faith in Messiah Yeshua, as well as many evangelical Christians embrace their Hebraic Roots in a tangible way... To some of you, these remarks seem rather obvious, and perhaps even a bit mundane. To others, though, these remarks are not only controversial, but they are also quite subversive. But, while you might expect these “others” to principally be various Christian leaders and theologians of influence—these “others” actually compose some significant Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers of note. They do not like much of what they see in the contemporary Messianic movement, which they widely believe should be an almost Jewish-exclusive community.[1]

One of the most significant issues that is dominating all of the contemporary Messianic movement, at present, is the future. Many are of the conviction that even though we are living in the end-times, that there are a number of things which need to transpire via the emergence of the Messianic movement, the salvation of the Jewish people, and the restoration of Israel—which will require some more time to see properly develop. Outreach Israel Ministries and TNN Online have been among those who have recognized this reality, and have tried to approach the whole subject of the “end-times” very, very carefully.[2] Yet, even within a broad Messianic vision of anticipating the salvation of the Jewish people and restoration of Israel’s Kingdom (cf. Acts 1:6), one will encounter a huge bevy of competing visions for the future of the Messianic movement. Some of these have been composed in various popular books, which you may see in the Judaica shop of your local Messianic Jewish congregation, or may be encountered via various popular Hebrew Roots conference events, articles, and blog postings.

A significant feature of the modern Messianic movement, which the early Messianic Jewish pioneers of the late 1960s and early 1970s, did not at all anticipate—is that this is now a majority non-Jewish movement. At first, probably into the mid-to-late 1980s, it was believed—and it still is by many—that the main reason various evangelical Christians were being led into Messianic Jewish congregations and assemblies, was so that they could help out and assist in an ancillary capacity. Obviously, the Messianic Jewish movement would need workers for Jewish ministry, and would need the resources of many people in order to continue. But by the late 1908s, and into the 1990s, it became quite obvious to many that non-Jewish Believers were being led into the Messianic Jewish movement for more reasons than just to help Jewish Believers and Jewish evangelism; these people were being led by the Lord to embrace their Hebraic Roots in a very tangible way, being sovereignly directed by Him to live in obedience to the Torah as Yeshua Himself lived (cf. Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4; Zechariah 8:23). They believed that the modern Messianic movement was, in many regards, supposed to mirror the First Century Body of Messiah, of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers sharing sacred space and fellowship with one another. This has been recognized as valid by many Messianic Jews, but then has also been rejected by other Messianic Jews.

Since the late 1990s and to our present, the early 2010s, the Messianic Jewish movement has seen various splinter sub-movements emerge (i.e., the One Law/One Torah sub-movement, the Two-House sub-movement), which are widely composed of non-Jewish Believers embracing their Hebraic Roots in various ways. Most of these people see themselves as being grafted-in to Israel via their faith in Messiah Yeshua (Romans 11:16ff), and that they are not a part of some separate “Church” entity. Some of these people, in their quest to recapture a lost appreciation of the Torah and Tanach, try to be respectful to the Jewish and Christian people who have preceded them—but then many others are quite dishonoring of Jews, Christians, and those who have preceded them. There are diverse views about what the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13) composes, and whether being a part of Israel means possessing citizenship in an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel alongside of Messianic Jewish people, keeping the same basic Torah Instruction (the One Law/One Torah sub-movement), or even whether it means that many, if not most, of today’s non-Jewish Messianics are members of the Ten Lost Tribes and need to return to the Holy Land (the Two-House sub-movement).

Suffice it to say, even with many Messianic Jewish congregations, and their leadership, being places where non-Jewish Believers can expect to be welcomed in various degrees—many non-Jewish Messianic Believers, per the issues that they face in embracing their Hebraic Roots and a life of Torah obedience—have not at all considered some of the concerns of Jewish Believers. Not enough have often paused for a moment, and considered the views of those Messianic Jews who are afraid that the Messianic movement will be so overrun by non-Jewish people, that there will be no place for Jewish ministry, mainline Jewish traditions and Jewish culture, and that Messianic Jewish children are in serious danger of all being intermarried out to non-Jewish spouses, with Jewish identity lost in one or two generations. As obvious as it might be, recognizing that you cannot have an authentic restoration of Israel without the Jewish people, and that a noticeable level of Jewish distinction must be present, has been overlooked and forgotten by many non-Jewish Believers embracing their Hebraic Roots at present.

I have collected a few important thoughts for each of us to consider, as we contemplate some of the fears that today’s Messianic Jewish Believers have of replacement and irrelevance, in this current season. Obviously, there are no easy answers, but I hope that these thoughts will ably communicate how I am not trying to replace the Jewish people via my Messianic convictions, and neither am I trying to pass myself off as though I were ethnically and culturally Jewish.

Required Sensitivity for Non-Jews Being a Part of Israel

One of the most significant debates raging right now, across the Messianic movement—which far too many are aware of, and which is dividing many, many people—is perhaps best represented by the question: Are non-Jewish Believers really a part of Israel? This is a topic that I delved into, in a Confronting Issues mini-book (328 pages) by this title, released in early 2013. My main intention was to catalogue some of the main passages from the Apostolic Scriptures or the New Testament which involve ecclesiology or the study of God’s elect,[3] notably including those which deal with the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), and the concept of those from the nations being grafted-in (Romans 11:16ff), and evaluate current Messianic handling of these ideas. My intention was not at all to communicate that non-Jewish Believers, legitimately possessing citizenship in Israel’s Messianic Kingdom realm, and thus a part of Israel—were somehow genetically, ethnically, or even culturally Jewish. As the Prophet Amos anticipated (Amos 9:11-12, both MT and LXX; cf. Acts 15:15-18), the restoration of the Tabernacle of David will involve a restored Twelve Tribes of Israel in the Holy Land, and then the borders of Israel’s Kingdom expanding to incorporate the righteous from the nations. I issued some strong words against non-Jewish Messianics thinking they could make aliyah to the Holy Land, as a Jewish person could, as well as admonishing non-Jewish Messianics not to call themselves some sort of “Israelites.” I advised being very careful with how they explained to Jewish Believers how they consider themselves a part of “Israel,” meaning the assembly Yeshua came to restore (Matthew 16:18; cf. Jeremiah 33:7, LXX), as we are not all exactly the same.

The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians, “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1, NRSV), as all of us, Jewish and non-Jewish, are to look to the Tanach Scriptures as a part of our spiritual heritage, and think of ourselves as being among those who participated in the Exodus. But, it cannot be overlooked how there is certainly a Jewish distinction seen in Holy Scripture, if by anything else, by virtue of the fact that what is recorded in the Tanach or the Old Testament is not only a Jewish person’s spiritual heritage, but is also his or her ethnic and cultural heritage (cf. Romans 9:4). Non-Jewish Believers cannot readily claim these latter two. This means that Jewish people will, or at least should, have a much deeper connection with the ancient Biblical past, and a familiarity and comfort level, which non-Jews are likely not to have. Jewish people should have more of a natural impetus and desire to follow the Torah than the rest of us, because for them it is not only about obeying God, but also about who they are as a people.

Being able to recognize some level of distinction, between Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, has not always been possible among non-Jewish Believers embracing their Hebraic Roots. In fact, it might be said that Paul’s warning of Romans 11:17-23 has not always been respected and adhered to:

“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”

It is, of course, entirely true that the olive tree, to which the wild branches of those from the nations are grafted-in, is Israel, as affirmed by the Tanach (Jeremiah 11:16-17[4]; Hosea 14:1-7[5]). Paul’s ancient observation, though, as stated earlier, was “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Messiah for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:2-3). If Paul, even a bit exaggerated, can say that he would be willing to give up his Messiah faith for the greater salvation of Jewish people who have largely rejected Yeshua—then today’s non-Jewish Messianics can exhibit a bit more respect and caution, than they tend to, when interacting with Jewish Believers. For, just as Paul said, natural branches had to be broken off of the olive tree to make room for those of the nations. And, just as Paul warned, if God was willing to break of natural branches, then He would be just as willing to cut off the wild branches who are arrogant and fail to recognize the likely cost of their salvation. So, if non-Jewish Believers do legitimately consider themselves a part of Israel’s olive tree, albeit as wild branches and not totally the same as Jewish Believers who are the natural branches—when they say We are a part of Israel too, it not only needs to be emphasized that what is being talked about is the future Messianic Kingdom that is coming and not citizenship in the current State of Israel, but also that they are greatly grieved at the widescale Jewish rejection of Yeshua.

Because of current challenges via the inevitable pains to be experienced by us as a still-developing and emerging faith community, it is not a surprise why many non-Jewish Believers, embracing their Hebraic Roots, have not taken Paul’s direction of Romans 11:17-23 as well as they should have. And perhaps most challenging, at least per my interpretation of Romans 11:25, “a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the [nations] has come in,” is that to plērōma tōn ethnōn should be interpreted in light of the previous statement, “if their transgression leads to riches for the world, and their loss riches for the [nations], how much more their fullness” (Romans 11:12, TLV), posō mallon to plērōma autōn. The corporate salvation of the Jewish people and the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom (Romans 11:26-29), will not take place until non-Jewish Believers enter in on the scene, who are spiritually, ethically, and morally the “fullness” of all who they can be in Yeshua—specifically involving being agents of love, grace, and mercy par excellence to a Jewish people who have widely rejected Him: “because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy” (Romans 11:31). This interpretation of Romans 11:12, 25 is not a difficult one because of the exegesis involved with the term plērōma; it is a difficult interpretation because it is the most difficult to implement, as it requires many base human emotions to be jettisoned.[6]

Sadly, not enough of today’s non-Jewish Messianics have committed themselves to becoming “the fullness of the nations” spiritually, ethically, and morally. They have not asked the Lord to give them transformed hearts and minds, able to be moved with compassion for not only the unique needs of the worldwide Jewish community (especially a post-Holocaust community!),[7] but also to have the intellectual ability of knowing when and when not to speak. This does involve being able to compute some of the historical difficulties which have ensued between Jews and Christians in past centuries, being able to mediate through the religious politics of the current Messianic movement, and setting the attention of God’s people onto the glorious future in store for all of us. If non-Jewish Believers consider themselves being a part of Israel, and even sharing in Israel’s irrevocable calling (Romans 11:29)—serving God as part of a Kingdom of priests and holy nation (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9-11)—then part of serving the Lord as a priest is to know how to intercede for the redemption of humanity’s lost. The sensationalism that dominates far too much of the Hebrew Roots movement (and especially the Two-House sub-movement!)[8] has made non-Jews being a part of Israel a source of great pride and arrogance, as opposed to being substantially moved to act for the Lord for the salvation of His Jewish people and the world at large!

The Fears of Some of Today’s Messianic Jews:

non-Jewish Messianics Living as Cultural Jews

Many Messianic Jews, when looking out at the demographics of their congregations, fellowships, and at the broad Messianic community, are afraid that who they are will be marginalized by non-Jews in their midst. At the very least, if a Messianic congregation is over half non-Jewish, then will the congregational leadership be able to balance out the unique needs of all of the people who are members of the local faith community? In many cases, the issues that non-Jewish Believers have in embracing their Hebraic Roots abundantly overshadow the issues that Jewish Believers have when balancing their profession of faith in Yeshua, with their non-believing family and the wider Jewish community. Will the Messianic congregation provide some of the significant elements of a traditional synagogue, or will it be closer to a non-denominational church with some Hebraic accoutrements? Even with Jewish Believers in Yeshua knowing that their Messiah faith will require some sacrifice, totally giving up on mainline Jewish traditions and culture should not be something that the broad Messianic community—a majority of whom are non-Jewish—asks or requires of them.

In much of my on-the-ground experience, the concern exhibited by your average Messianic Jew (although there are various ones who do express such concerns) is not necessarily over non-Jewish Believers keeping the seventh-day Sabbath as a day off from work, eating a kosher-style diet that widely avoids pork and shellfish, or even men wearing a kippah/yarmulke at a Saturday morning worship service as part of congregational protocol. The concern of replacement and irrelevance that your average Messianic Jew has, is when a non-Jewish Believer, or a family of such Believers, observes a high level of cultural Jewishness that most modern Jews and Messianic Jews are themselves unwilling to have—which is typically, although not always, a level of Torah observance most easily associated with the ultra Orthodox or Chassidic movements. For many non-Jewish Messianic Believers, Torah obedience equals living as though they are ethnic and cultural Jews, in all aspects of their lives, with their own ethnic and cultural background either downplayed or totally forgotten.

Various leaders and teachers in the One Torah/One Law sub-movement, in particular, in rightly wanting to inform a broad audience about many of the edifying and enriching aspects of Jewish tradition and culture—have not done a very good job at helping non-Jewish Messianics sort between Biblical commandments, Jewish tradition, and Jewish culture. Biblical commandments like observing the seventh-day Sabbath, for example, should be observed by all of God’s people. Having a Shabbat service with a Torah scroll and various liturgical prayers, as much of a blessing as it truly may be, though, would be something found in Jewish tradition—and would be something most logical to see practiced in a wide congregational assembly, which will probably be a mixed group of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers. But, making sure that on Friday night one eats challah or gefilte fish, and drinks highly sweet and syrupy Manischewitz wine, would very clearly be a part of Jewish culture likely to be observed in Messianic Jewish homes—and while very rich and dynamic and bonding—are obviously not Biblical mandates that everyone should feel that they have to observe, and are likely to be mostly limited to Jewish homes with centuries-old family traditions.

Since the late 2000s and into the 2010s, I have interacted with a number of Messianic Jews, some of whom are in congregational leadership or administration, who are not too worried about non-Jewish Believers worshipping with them on a consistent basis, on Shabbat—but are worried about non-Jewish Believers crowding them out, as though such non-Jewish Believers were somehow cultural Jews, when they are not. A number of major cultural aspects which disturb them, which very few have had the courage to even mention, include:

•  the adoption of Hebrew pseudo-names by non-Jewish Messianics, including calling one’s parents abba or ima

•  the adoption of cultural Jewish practices such as non-Jewish Believers (not intermarrieds) marrying under a chuppah and breaking a glass at their wedding, as though both husband and wife were Jewish

•  the adoption by some non-Jewish Messianics of dressing as though they were Chassidic Jews, via some sort of quasi-Seventeenth Century Eastern European garb

•  insistence of burial within twenty-four hours, per the more rigidly conservative Jewish convention

•  a tendency to widely, or exclusively, listen to or sing Eastern European-style klesmer or Middle Eastern-style music

•  a tendency to widely eat food that has only been prepared via customary Eastern European Jewish or Middle Eastern style (note: the issue is not a kosher style of separating out clean and unclean meats, but instead culinary taste)

•  littering normal English speech with a wide number of out of place Hebrew or Yiddish terms

Obviously, especially in a place like North America as a land of immigrants, there will be some cultural blending witnessed among whatever groups of religious people gather together in a wider assembly. And, people have a free will to call themselves what they want, to have the wedding ceremony that they want, to wear the clothing they want, to have the funeral that they want, or to favor a particular style of cuisine.

No one should take these above points and ever think that I am against a traditional Jewish wedding with a chuppah canopy, or think that I am against klesmer music, or that I am against eating Middle Eastern dishes like hummus. I am not against these things! (Non-Jewish couples having a Jewish style wedding is undeniably preferable to a man and woman indefinitely living and copulating together, unmarried, after all!) Any non-Jewish Messianic should be able to attest to the great beauty and richness of not only the Jewish people and their culture, but of the wide diversity of Jewry as well. However, non-Jewish Torah obedient people do, at times, think that they must live as though they were ethnically and culturally Jewish—and in the process they forget many of the virtues of their own background, and will even find themselves violating the Fifth Commandment (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).

While certainly needing to be reformed and influenced by a Biblical ethos, various types of clothing, cuisine, music, artwork, entertainment, architecture, and even literature—from a huge array of world cultures—should not all be synthesized to look and feel like that found in global Jewry. The Body of Messiah can—after all—be viewed as a tossed salad, and not at all as a melting pot. I myself am a huge fan of Jewish tradition and culture, and know that it benefits Messianic congregations and assemblies—of both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers—the world over. Yet is is obvious from how I live my life that I am no “Jewish wannabe,” even though I do consider myself a citizen of an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel in Messiah Yeshua.

I might be able to help stop some of the fears of, at least a few, of today’s Messianic Jews, who might have the impression that I am a non-Jewish Believer—and a teacher who has a huge volume of writing to his name, no less—who somehow via my Torah observance, am trying to live as though I were ethnically and culturally Jewish. Some counterpoints, from my own life, per the list above, include:

•  even with some pressure exerted on me by outside extremists at times, my legal name is still John Kimball McKee, my family and close friends call me John, and professionally I go by my initials J.K. McKee in conventional honor of my paternal grandfather G.K. McKee,[9] my father K.K. McKee,[10] and my maternal grandfather W.W. Jeffries[11]

•  while I am not likely to have a traditional Protestant style wedding in a church facility, it is doubtful (at present) that I will have a traditional Jewish-style wedding with Hebrew liturgy and a glass breaking ceremony, as much as I will have some sort of modified Protestant-style service with one or two Hebrew blessings, and with the Hebrew “Yeshua” used a little more than the English “Jesus”[12]

•  I do not dress as though I were from Seventeenth Century Eastern Europe, nor have I ever been tempted to; I have been accused, at times, though, of dressing too “preppy”

•  if the Lord does not return in my lifetime, my funeral plans are to be buried at the McKee family plot in Ft. Mitchell, KY, which will require my body to embalmed not just for transportation, but because of cemetery policies

•  I am no music expert, but I actually prefer to play Star Trek television soundtracks (particularly Deep Space Nine) while I work

•  I enjoy a wide array of world cuisines, including Jewish cuisine, but my favorite is still Southern American BBQ; I even plan on releasing a kosher style cookbook for it in the future

•  my speech is more likely to use political science terms and theological terms derived from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or German, than slang terms from Yiddish

I, J.K. McKee, am fairly comfortable in my identity not just as a non-Jewish Believer generically, but someone who is a Scottish American (among other nationalities), a Southern American, and who still has a high regard for his Protestant forbearers. Obviously, people who know me from my writings, know that I have defended the validity, relevance, and edifying spiritual value of mainline Jewish traditions, I have explained and lauded their importance, and I have talked about many aspects of Jewish culture by which I have personally been blessed and enriched as a part of Messianic congregations and fellowships. In addressing some of the life cycle and living preference issues, where many Messianic Jews feel like who they are is being crowded out—I hope that I have conveyed the point that am not trying to live as though I were a cultural Jew, robbing Jews of a wide degree of their distinctiveness. In a diverse Messianic congregation on Saturday morning for Shabbat, where I am in attendance, people are generally aware that a big, tall man from the nations, is among them. When they come to visit me in my ministry office, they are not at all shocked to see many Jewish books and Christian books; they are more surprised to see the many family mementos and relics across many years decorating the place rather than Judaica items.[13]

Obviously, there are many issues to be probed and explored—especially lifestyle issues—where the Bible, Jewish tradition, Jewish culture, and the backgrounds of many other people within the Messianic need to be respected and honored.[14] Many non-Jewish Believers, in their quest to be Torah observant, would only feel compelled to cross over into the realm of trying to live as though they were ethnically and culturally Jewish in most, if not all aspects of their lives, unless they were somehow made to feel that their own background should be disrespected. This is one of the reasons why I am so busy in ministry work, as it is my hope and intention to provide respectful, edifying solutions to our challenges—and above all see that all of us are appropriately honored for who we are as human beings made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). Being Torah obedient for a non-Jewish Believer does not mean that all of the strengths and virtues of his or her background should get tossed away. Likewise, being in a diverse Body of Messiah does not mean that Jewish Believers have to give up all of their unique cultural extra-Biblical practices, which helps to define and identify them as Jews. How we allow for unity and diversity, at the same time, is not going to be easy in the short term.

A Complicated Messianic Future

As things stand in 2013, the broad Messianic movement (the Messianic Jewish movement, the One Law/One Torah sub-movement, the Two-House sub-movement, Hebrew/Hebraic Roots) is still reeling from much of the fallout of the January 2012 Ralph Messer incident, where this populist figure desecrated a Torah scroll by wrapping it around an African American pastor, who was also an accused sex offender, and it then went viral on all of the major news networks—but most especially on YouTube.[15] To date, this has been the biggest public exposure any sector of the Messianic or Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement(s) has had to the wider world—and it was not at all a good one.[16] Many Messianic Jews overreacted to it, thinking that this would be the proverbial “end” of Messianic Judaism, with their congregational ministries having gone “poof” or “down the drain.” Obviously, God is much bigger than that! But since that time, various figures within Messianic Judaism have used this incident to clamp down on the presumed “Gentile problem,” redoubling their efforts to see that the Messianic movement almost exclusively be defined as “legitimate Messianic Judaism,” and to see a more exclusive rather than inclusive religious environment promoted.

Suffice it to say, rather than being a reason to try to understand the psychology of why certain opportunists do what they do, and why some people are led to follow them—various leaders of today’s main Messianic Jewish denominations have used the Ralph Messer incident, among other things, to justify some inappropriate religious politics. The new test of theological orthodoxy for many in Messianic Judaism is not what you do with Yeshua the Messiah, but instead whether or not you affirm a bilateral ecclesiology of two separate groups of elect, Israel and “the Church” (being the two parts of the “Commonwealth of Israel” of course),[17] and maintain rigid distinctions among God’s people.

In evangelical Christianity, now in the 2010s, many people have started to recognize how irrelevant denominationalism has become, especially in view of the controversy of ordination over gays and lesbians. For the past several decades, the true “spiritual power” of influence, if you will, has been present among para-church ministries and organizations. Eventually, the Messianic movement is not going to be as constrained by its denominations, and their politicking, position statements, and white papers (none of which address theological issues, but instead are only used for posturing) as they are at present. Individual people, families of people, and groups of families in fellowships, and also various established congregations, will take responsibility for themselves—in evaluating the trajectory of salvation history, the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom, and the inclusion of people from the nations. Even with some bad behavior present, such as was demonstrated via the Ralph Messer incident—God’s will for all of His people will still be accomplished.

We are steadily approaching the return of the Messiah, and Jewish Believers should not be threatened if non-Jewish Believers are following God’s Torah as has been prophesied (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4), joining with them in one accord as has been prophesied (Zechariah 8:23)—with all allowing the Holy Spirit to compel obedience via the power of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27). Non-Jewish Believers should be made to feel welcome, and their unique backgrounds and talents and skills and perspectives should be honored—the same as Jewish Believers absolutely should—because we all have value in God’s eyes. We need to be facilitating assemblies and fellowships where no one feels unnecessarily excluded, and where we move beyond some of the mistakes of the past. And let us also not forget this one sobering fact: the generation which will finally witness the full restoration of Israel’s Kingdom will also be one of intense apostasy against God (2 Thessalonians 2:3). There should be no real worry on the part of Messianic Jews that they will be utterly outnumbered by non-Jews in their midst, when in the future there will be too few God-Believers.[18]

Postscript:

A Messianic Spiritual Inventory

posted to the TNN Online website 01 May, 2013

My family has been formally involved in the Messianic movement since 1995. As has been described in numerous places throughout our publications, we would not have entered into it, if it had not been for some unique circumstances. When my parents, Kimball and Margaret McKee, came to saving faith in 1984, not only did they return to going to church again—but they also started, albeit nominally, investigating their Hebraic Roots. My father, employing some insights which were being taught by the late Zola Levitt, integrated various Hebraic Roots components into his Sunday school class, and even gave a presentation on the Passover at our Methodist church in Northern Kentucky.[19] When he passed away in 1992, and my mother remarried in 1994 and we moved to Dallas, Texas—Mark and Margaret Huey, now, were not going to be Methodist, nor Bible church. As a new family unit, we got involved in the charismatic movement for a brief season. It was following Mark and Margaret’s December 1994 trip to Israel that they felt the pull of the Holy Spirit into Messianic things, and so it was in the Fall of 1995 that we started attending a Messianic Jewish congregation, and were significantly exposed as a family to our Jewish Roots, things of Torah, and some Messianic controversies still in their very early stages. From that time onward, it has been a unique experience as we have become acquainted with many sectors of the broad Messianic movement, and we know that the story in 2013 is far from over...[20]

While a junior in high school in 1997, I started the TNN Online website (www.tnnonline.net), which was originally called Tribulation News Network (now just Theology News Network)—as many people, myself included, were expecting some sort of prophecy-related events to occur in conjunction with the new Millennium. Y2k came and went. In the early 2000s, though, something in the Messianic movement really began to stir, as it was obvious that more was happening beyond just the salvation of the Jewish people. Non-Jewish Believers, as our family had already experienced to a degree, had begun to embrace their Hebraic Roots en masse, living lives of Torah obedience. Between 2001-2002, while a junior at the University of Oklahoma—from my dorm room of all places—I began to write a wide variety of apologetic articles on various aspects of the Messianic lifestyle. I had already taken a semester of classical Greek, was taking modern Hebrew, and was also taking history classes germane to the broad Biblical period. The early 2000s were a time where some highly sensational literature had hit the Messianic world, written by individuals poorly qualified to offer opinions on theological and spiritual topics. Given my family’s background in both ministry and education going back several generations,[21] I certainly did not see why I could not start writing myself—and in the process offer some more balanced perspectives and opinions.

After having served in a consulting capacity with some Messianic ministries, by my senior year of college in 2002-2003, my parents started Outreach Israel Ministries (www.outreachisrael.net), which TNN Online was naturally folded into. When I graduated in 2003, I joined the ministry full time, and I took a year-and-a-half off as we got things established. Since then, Outreach Israel has developed into an educational Messianic ministry, which produces materials addressing a wide range of (complicated) issues germane to our broad faith community.

In the Spring of 2005 I started classes at the satellite campus of Asbury Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, to work on my M.A. in Biblical Studies. Because of my family’s past connections and involvement with Asbury in Wilmore, Kentucky at various church functions, I had a certain degree of comfort at Asbury, and an even greater familiarity with what to expect because of my Wesleyan heritage. Unlike, perhaps, some other Messianic people who have gone to Christian educational institutions—I went to Asbury to learn skills, be familiarized with discussions in current Biblical Studies, become acquainted with various perspectives present across the theological spectrum, and hone in on my Hebrew and Greek. This meant that I was very careful and tactful in challenging anything—as opposed to how some might have caused controversy by forcing their Messianic beliefs onto others.[22] For the variety of issues on which a Messianic person like myself may have disagreed, I took notes and made observations, filing them away (possibly to be used at a later date). If there is anything I was definitely taught that has remained truly invaluable for me, it was that in my Inductive Bible Study classes and exegesis classes, we were taught to stick with the text. My professors would tell us as students that even though we would be accessing various commentaries, articles, and other academic resources—that we were free to disagree with opinions offered, provided we could defend our position from the Biblical text. Learning how to do this well, was a definite skill for which I will always be thankful!

Of all the seminary experiences that I had, which I continue to carry with me, was that of walking into the Asbury library multiple times throughout 2005. The first impression you get is personally knowing that your own library is going to have to expand, as you begin to acquire an entire host of reference books, encyclopedias, commentaries, and specialized studies. Your second impression, as a Messianic person, is realizing that while there are many books on many theological and spiritual topics—is how little written material there actually is from a Messianic Jewish/non-Jewish perspective, on some major issues of substance. Even now in 2013, much of what has influenced our broad faith community has been from those who have only written two or three books, and who then often stop. In 2005 I had to seriously consider whether it would ever be possible, for a shelf of well-written and lucid resources composed by future Messianic people to be realized. If so, it would mean a great deal of heavy labor, time, and energy committed... Many teachers and leaders continue to kick proverbial cans down the road, presumably leaving their successors—younger people such as myself—to handle the work.

In the 2000s, the Messianic movement grew too quickly and too big, and the theology has not been able to catch up with it. There was a significant amount of cutting corners by various leaders and teachers, and important details left out of key discussions. The 2000s have also been a time where a polarization began to emerge, particularly between the religious politics of various Messianic Jewish denominations, and the antics of various independent Messianic figures.[23] Recognizing, especially from my seminary studies, that the amount of work that a ministry like Outreach Israel and TNN Online were going to have to accomplish would be immense—we found it most prudent to adopt the policy of preferring to deal with teachings, and not teachers. The broad Messianic community is so small, that generally everyone in some position of leadership has either met or encountered or at least heard of another at some point in time. The need to stay objective—but above all emotionally distanced—is most imperative if issues of controversy are to be fairly addressed. Writing refutation papers, as opposed to theological analyses, is a habit that needs to be broken.[24]

I graduated from Asbury Theological Seminary with my M.A. in Biblical Studies in the Spring of 2009—and I even received the Zondervan Biblical Languages Award for Greek, no less. At the end of 2009, though, with the new decade looming, circumstances within the contemporary Messianic movement made it obvious, to me, that some big changes would be in store for all of us in the 2010s. Some theological flip-flopping and negative religious politics by some more well-known and popular Messianic voices made it clear that some significant, necessary shifts and alterations, would need to occur among men and women within our faith community. Some of these would be painful. The biggest of these changes would be the fact that a new kind of Messianic spiritual culture had to emerge—one that emphasized the common faith in the Lord Yeshua and what He has accomplished for redeemed sinners as the most important thing. Unfortunately for far too much of the broad Messianic movement (Messianic Judaism, the One Law/One Torah sub-movement, the Two-House sub-movement, various other independents, etc.), differences among people and what makes a sub-group or clique unique or presumably “special,” are believed to override (or in some cases nullify) the common bonds among those saved by God’s grace. The actual change that needs to be made, in emphasizing what Yeshua has accomplished for us as being the most important, is quite simple...but is also quite difficult...[25] Yet, I think that the changes which need to take place among individual people and families, is much easier to implement, than in trying to change leaders.

As we entered into 2010 and a new decade, how many of us who had been in the Messianic movement for some period of time, were listening to what God was communicating? All of us, be we Jewish or non-Jewish, compose a very special and significant faith community (especially now in the very early stages, where those involved have to likely be specifically called of God into it, given its current growing pains). When we can respect the high virtues and positive accomplishments of the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church, and come together employing those strengths in mutual submission to one another—then today’s Messianic people possess a significant amount of spiritual power to accomplish God’s objectives for the final stages of salvation history. The enemy knows this, and this is why there has been so much division. When we can get our “act together,” as it were,” I believe that there will be very little that can stop us.[26]

The 2010s are going to be a significant season of a retaking of spiritual inventory for all of us in the Messianic world. What are those things that we have all been avoiding for far too long? Where have some of us gone too far, and where will we need to pull the reigns back? Where do we need to be more cautious and considerate as we consider the future? Will tact and discernment, be truly able to replace base emotions and reactionarianism? I know that much of what Outreach Israel and TNN Online have researched, written, and directed in the 2000s have helped provide a base for the long term future of much of our Messianic faith community—particularly those who are able to see the big picture, and can truly consider the great potential we collectively possess.

In December 2012, my own family relocated back to the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, after two years of trying to leave Central Florida. We actually have returned to where we got our start in the Messianic movement! It is too premature, after five months now in May 2013, to make any determinations on whether we are going to make a sizeable impact in an area which is a definite hub of North American Messianic activity. What is not too premature to know, however, is that a teacher such as myself is going to be absolutely overloaded with things to do for a good long while!

As the chief coordinator for TNN Press, as soon as a wider array of publications is released on a Torah obedient lifestyle for all Messianic Believers—which should have actually been finished yesterday—we have a distinct impression that issues of Christology (the doctrine of the Messiah) and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) are going to hit our movement hard. The array of issues needing to be addressed on the Messianic lifestyle is a heavy volume for the next few years[27]; and the other issues will require a significant amount of reflection, contemplation, and reasoning—and headaches.[28] And I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Wednesday Night Bible Study podcast—which I have posted since August 2005—is what has been used to produce the volumes of our Practical Messianic commentary series.[29] This is something which I know cannot stop, because I am unaware of any other ministry which is dedicated to steadily producing Bible commentaries from a Messianic perspective, which are both semi-technical and are spiritually challenging to Believers’ growth in the Lord. At the very least, it is my goal over the next two decades or so, to see a complete set of Messianic commentaries released on the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament.[30]

Beyond the various issues of a Torah obedient lifestyle for today’s Messianic people, and issues pertaining to the nature of the Messiah and our salvation in Him—we cannot also avoid knowing that there will be a huge array of issues hitting, which wider society will force upon us as people of faith. How prepared are today’s Messianic Believers to consider criticisms against the Bible, its relativity, and its reliability? We know that these things are going to increase. During the week of this past Passover 2013, there was a huge debate here in the United States over the legality of gay marriage, which is something of a sort-of theological hot potato as it concerns the validity and relevance of the Law of Moses in various Christian circles.[31] We should also know that a simplistic and disengaged approach toward such things will not suffice. The scariest end-time sign of them all, to be certain, is the prophesied apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:9). As we anticipate the end-time restoration of the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), and the redeemed from the nations coming to Zion to be taught God’s Torah (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4), and joining with the Jewish people (Zechariah 8:23)—there will also be many, many people denying the truth of God’s Word, and indeed, the very existence of a Supreme Being.[32]

What is going to come as we go through the present season of a retaking of our Messianic spiritual inventory? People from all sides of the broad Messianic movement will need to make various concessions that they might not be willing to make.[33] We will all have to pray that the Lord grants us a significant degree of both calmness and coolness, and that we will listen to reason a bit more frequently than to our base emotions. Above all, we must be willing to be crafted into a fine-tuned and well-polished machine, knowing that whatever we may have to give up—or more likely tighten and shore up—is ultimately minor in terms of the larger impetus of seeing an inclusive, welcoming Messianic movement emerge, which employs and honors all of the gifts, talents, and skills of today’s Jewish and non-Jewish men and women![34]

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 19

[1]

Some of the recent literature that has been released, reflecting this perspective in various ways, includes: Daniel Juster, Jewish Roots: Understanding Your Jewish Faith, revised edition (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2013); David J. Rudolph and Joel Willetts, eds., Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013); Eitan Shishkoff, “What About Us?” The end-time calling of Gentiles in Israel’s revival (Bedford, TX: Burkhart Books, 2013); Boaz Michael, Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile (Marshfield, MO: First Fruits of Zion, 2013).

[2] If necessary, do avail yourself of the perspective offered in the book When Will the Messiah Return? by J.K. McKee.

[3] Matthew 16:18-19; John 10:14-18; Acts 1:6; Acts 2:36-39; 15: 15:-18; Romans 2:28-29; 9:3-6, 23-29; 11:16-24, 25,-29; 16:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, 18; Galatians 2:7-10; 6:15-16; Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6; Titus 2:13-14; 1 Peter 2:9-11; Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6.

[4] “The LORD called your name, ‘A green olive tree, beautiful in fruit and form’; with the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, and its branches are worthless. The LORD of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced evil against you because of the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done to provoke Me by offering up sacrifices to Baal” (Jeremiah 11:16-17).

[5] “Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips. Assyria will not save us, we will not ride on horses; nor will we say again, “Our god,” to the work of our hands; for in You the orphan finds mercy.’ I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from them. I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like the lily, and he will take root like the cedars of Lebanon. His shoots will sprout, and his beauty will be like the olive tree and his fragrance like the cedars of Lebanon. Those who live in his shadow will again raise grain, and they will blossom like the vine. His renown will be like the wine of Lebanon” (Hosea 14:1-7).

[6] This is further discussed in Chapter 5 of When Will the Messiah Return? by J.K. McKee, “The Restoration of All Things and the Emergence of the Messianic Movement”; also consult the relevant sections of the forthcoming (planned 2014) commentary Romans for the Practical Messianic.

[7] If at all necessary, do consult the substantial work William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Touchstone, 1959).

[8] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Two-House Teaching,” as well as the book Israel in Future Prophecy by J.K. McKee, which takes a favorable view to Tanach prophecies involving the reunion of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel (i.e., Isaiah 11:12-16; Jeremiah 31:6-10; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Zechariah 10:6-10), but a stern view of the relatively populist Two-House sub-movement.

[9] George Kenneth McKee (1903-1978).

[10] Kenneth Kimball McKee (1951-1992).

[11] William Worthington Jeffries (1914-1989).

[12] Given the challenges of Twenty-First Century marriage, my personal view is that while intermarriage between Jewish and non-Jewish Believers can certainly work—albeit with various pushes and pulls—it should not be the overall norm for Messianic people considering marriage with a potential husband or wife.

[13] For a further review, consult the thoughts expressed in “The Jerusalem Council and Today’s Messianic Movement,” in the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[14] These will be appropriately explored in the forthcoming book Torah In the Balance, Volume II: The Separated Life in Action—The Outward Expressions of Faith, coming late 2013 or early 2014 by J.K. McKee.

[15] As of 05 August, 2013, the YouTube video “New Birth Crowns Eddie Long as King” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVkoQHCXSK8> received approximately 891,730 views.

[16] (2012). UMJC, MJAA respond to Messer video. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations; Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. Available online via <http://umjc.org> and <http://mjaa.org>.

[17] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Commonwealth of Israel.”

[18] As I stated, with a great deal of fear and trepidation, in my commentary 1&2 Thessalonians for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL, 2012), 113,

“As we look at v. 3 as Twenty-First Century Messianics, what might be some of the causes of this coming apostasy that should disturb, if not frighten us? While there are aspects of this apostasy which will surely involve a steady erosion of Biblical ethics and morality, and people disregarding foundational instructions like the Ten Commandments—how much of this apostasy will be spearheaded by more and more people treating the Holy Scriptures as myths and fairy tales? How much of the apostasy coming will be related to reliability and historicity issues pertaining to the Biblical record, and will even be coupled with scientific criticisms against the Bible? These are issues, which while certainly dominating much of today’s evangelical Christian apologetics, are things which too many of today’s Messianic Believers avoid. In the future, if they are at all related to the rise of apostasy—we will not be able to avoid them. The apostasy coming is perhaps the most frightening of all of the end-time signs, for the precise reason that unlike other signs—it involves a massive rebellion of many purported Believers, and it is something that the people of God can help prevent in the lives of many in the Body of Messiah.”

[19] A biographical sketch of Kim McKee is available as part of the K. Kimball McKee Memorial Fund <outreachisrael.net/kkm-fund.html>, with donations accepted by Outreach Israel Ministries, specifically established so that his Christian friends and associates can help to see his ministry work continue via his surviving family.

[20] More of our family’s “Messianic story” is seen sprinkled throughout various publications by TNN Press. These notably include Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study, the TorahScope reflective commentaries by Mark Huey, and the publication To Be Absent From the Body by J.K. McKee.

[21] This would most notably include my maternal great-grandfather Bishop Marvin A. Franklin (1894-1972), who served as a minister and bishop of the Methodist Church, throughout his ministry serving churches in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Bishop Franklin was President of the Council of Bishops from 1959-1960. It would also include my maternal grandfather William W. Jeffries (1914-1989), who served as a professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland from 1942-1989, notably as the museum director and founder of what is now the William W. Jeffries Memorial Archives in the Nimitz Library.

[22] One issue that Asbury Theological Seminary is well known for in the evangelical Christian world, is taking a strong stance against the homosexual lifestyle. Written during one of my two Romans exegesis classes, is the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Romans 1:26-27.”

[23] In my own estimation, the worst of these antics was the claim of one teacher in 2005 that the Epistle to the Hebrews was riddled with reliability issues, and could neither be trusted nor regarded as Holy Scripture.

For a further discussion, consult the commentary Hebrews for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[24] Review YouTube video podcast by J.K. McKee, from 20 March, 2013, “A Theology of Refutation,” accessible via <youtube.com/tnnonline>.

[25] Consult the article “The Faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah,” appearing in the book The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee.

[26] Be sure to consult the previous thoughts in “Is God’s Purpose Bigger?,” appearing in the October 2009 issue of Outreach Israel News, and reproduced in this publication.

[27] While specific dates and the order are subject to change, between 2013 and 2014, expect to see publications such as the Messianic Torah Helper, the Messianic Sabbath Helper (paperback), the Messianic Kosher Helper, and Torah In the Balance, Volume II be released.

[28] The planned TNN Press volumes Salvation on the Line: The Nature of Yeshua and His Divinity and Salvation in View: The Doctrine of Salvation and Today’s Messianic Community, for the 2010s, will mainly classify and examine the Scriptural passages of importance as they pertain to Christology and soteriology.

[29] To date (2013), as a part of the for the Practical Messianic commentary series produced by TNN Press, the editor has completed volumes on (listed in order of release) on: James, Hebrews, Philippians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, Acts 15, the Pastoral Epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus, and 1&2 Thessalonians. Also released have been survey workbooks on the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures.

[30] In the interim, following the completion of the Spring 2013 James study, will begin a planned series of long studies through the Pauline letters of Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians, which are anticipated to take between three to four years.

[31] Cf. J.K. McKee, The New Testament Validates Torah: Does the New Testament Really Do Away With the Law? (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012), pp 6-8.

[32] Be sure to consult the commentary 1&2 Thessalonians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee, as well as his article “The Great Apostasy,” appearing in When Will the Messiah Return?

[33] Cf. J.K. McKee, Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel? (Richardson, TX: TNN Press, 2013), pp 227-228 fn#295.

[34] Cf. J.K. McKee, “What Could an Egalitarian Messianic Movement Achieve?” in The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2012), pp 89-95.

-20-

Waging War: Fight the Good Fight 2010

Mark Huey

For the unbelieving, “natural” human person who is bereft of the Spirit of God, journeying through time on terra firma—life is a series of struggles with elemental realities, ranging from: simple survival, thriving by one’s own faculties and five senses, and achieving success without either knowledge or experience of dimensions beyond this one.[1] Whether it is the vagaries of different societal environments that have developed over the millennia around the world, an occasionally predictable climate or unexpected natural disasters requiring shelter to prevent death, the ubiquitous thorns and thistles impeding food production, the challenges of capturing game or raising edible livestock, or simply avoiding the violent intrusions of self-justifying humans seeking to conquer in order to survive—maintaining physical life can be compared to a series of battles to minimally endure and perpetuate the species.

Beyond the base instincts for survival on this physical plane, the Holy Scriptures inform us of other dimensions that are not tangible to the naked human eye, but exist as a largely unseen spirit world. This is a realm that is real to God and His angels, as well as the Devil and his forces. Many have been able to experience some contact with this “other universe,” and some people have been able to be given a glimpse of these realities long before death (2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Most Believers simply have to possess the faith that there is something beyond this current universe, and not give themselves any reason to doubt. Those who are able to experience a degree of Heaven—right now on Earth—are those who have been uniquely endowed with the Spirit of God. According to the Apostle Paul, as he communicated the distinctions between natural and spiritual people to the Believers in Corinth, those indwelt by God’s Spirit have a unique capacity to interact with Him:

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man [unspiritual man, RSV] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:12-14).

The Armor of God

Eventually over the course of time and experience, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit—and are increasingly matured and enlightened in their relationship with the Creator—become more sensitive and in tune to the other entities which inhabit and operate in the cosmos. While we should be aware of the forces of light that are at our disposal as the people of God (i.e., Psalm 91:11-12; 1 Corinthians 6:3), we are to be most aware and discerning of the forces of darkness. The Apostle Peter admonishes, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). The Apostle Paul’s specific instruction—in recognizing the different rulers, powers, and forces of evil darkness—is that the people of God are to take upon themselves His armor:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH [Isaiah 11:5], and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS [Isaiah 59:17], and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE [Isaiah 52:7]; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION [Isaiah 59:17], and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:12-17).

After describing how “we are not contending” (RSV) or “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood” (ESV), likened unto a kind of “battle” (HCSB), Paul describes a variety of key weapons that are to be employed against the Adversary. The Lord Himself is described as a Warrior who goes out to battle for His people. Isaiah 42:13 exclaims, “The LORD will go forth like a warrior, He will arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail against His enemies.” Psalm 35:1-3 says, “Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take hold of buckler and shield and rise up for my help. Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me; say to my soul, ‘I am your salvation.’” Part of being an imitator of God (Ephesians 5:1) is going out and joining the fight against evil! The various elements of the armor of God are derived directly from the Tanakh:

Girded Loins and the Breastplate of Righteousness:

“But with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist” (Isaiah 11:4-5).

“He put on righteousness like a breastplate...” (Isaiah 59:17).

Feet Shod with the Gospel of Peace

“How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (Isaiah 52:7).

Shield of Faith

“After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, ‘Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great’” (Genesis 15:1).

“For it is You who blesses the righteous man, O LORD, You surround him with favor as with a shield…As for God, His way is blameless; the word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him…The LORD is my strength and my shield; My heart trusts in Him, and I am helped; therefore my heart exults, and with my song I shall thank Him” (Psalm 5:12; 18:30; 28:7).

Helmet of Salvation[2]

“...a helmet of salvation on His head...” (Isaiah 59:17).[3]

The analogies of girded loins or belt for protection, a chest covering breastplate, appropriate protective shoes, a shield, a helmet, and a sword, all suggest that the struggle God’s people are to endure is interminable warfare going from battle to battle. The implied fact that the faithful soldier of God can utilize His truth, His righteousness, the gospel of peace, personal faith, the salvation experience, and the (spoken) Word of God[4] is to give him or her great comfort. But if these spiritual weapons and tools are not employed during the frequent skirmishes, then victory over the Devil and his temptations will not be achieved. Paul elaborates on this point to the Corinthians, as he notes that within the spiritual war we fight, we are to take every thought captive, and see that any speculation or lofty thing raised up against God is taken down:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Messiah, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete” (2 Corinthians 10:3-6).

The False Teaching in Ephesus

Recognizing that there is an ongoing spiritual battle taking place between the forces of light and darkness, some of it seen and some of it unseen (or not obvious), we should not be surprised to see how refuting speculations is something elaborated on within Paul’s letters. In 1 Timothy, the Apostle Paul has left his junior ministry partner behind in order to solve a complicated problem that had erupted, and how to get the brothers and sisters back on a proper course of faith. In the opening statements of what are commonly called the Pastoral Epistles (also including Titus, 2 Timothy), Paul turns immediately to the crux of the false teaching that Timothy would have to face. But, rather than this being an entirely outside threat to the Believers, the battle that Timothy must wage is against what could be compared to a fifth column within the congregation(s), brought on by a sector of people whose aim is to not only disrupt the assembly, but see that its established leadership and teachers are usurped:

“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:3-11).

Messianic Believers frequently struggle over these verses, often because they are quoted by various Christian friends or family members or associates against their Torah observance, completely removed from their ancient context. These are not statements “putting down” the Torah. The main thrust of the false teaching in Ephesus was how it was associated with “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Timothy 1:4),[5] which could have been derived from the Torah, but are claims made by those who “want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7, NIV). These are people[6] who lack the skills and abilities to understand the Torah, and so they are willing to either exaggerate things about it, or they just flat make up myths and stories to gain a following. There are various proposals made about what “myths” could have been circulating, as summarized by Gordon D. Fee:

“[W]hat they were precisely is not available to us, although there have been several suggestions (such as the kinds of speculations one finds in the Book of Jubilees or in Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis or in Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities or even in the Jewish haggadic tradition [illustrative commentary on the OT]). It must be finally admitted that we simply do not know, because Paul does not give us enough clues.”[7]

The best option we actually have for the false teaching is that Paul’s reference to “genealogies” pertains to figures in the Torah who are not spoken of that much (i.e., the lists of Genesis 5 and 11), but for whom there is a significant amount of commentary and writing (and some exaggeration) in various extra-Biblical works, figures for whom embellished teachings could be easily contrived. It is very possible that the figure of Eve held some significance for the false teaching, and the sway the false teaching held over some of the Ephesian women (1 Timothy 2:13-14).

Recognizing that a feature of the false teaching was the errant idea that the resurrection had taken place (2 Timothy 2:18), this gave rise to bad practices like abstaining from marriage or eating meat (1 Timothy 4:1-5), as both marriage/sex and meat eating were features of human life after the Fall of humanity, and hence were not believed to be that “good.” In order to return to a so-called idealistic state like that experienced in Eden, Believers were to follow an ascetic lifestyle. Ironically enough, though, the false teaching in Ephesus had many inconsistencies, so while forbidding marriage or eating meat was practiced, the false teachers used their speculations as a means of obtaining wealth (1 Timothy 6:9-10). Likewise, many young widows who had abstained from getting remarried, nevertheless wanted to do so (1 Timothy 5:11-12).[8]

The point made by Paul is really quite obvious: there is an improper usage of God’s Torah that can lead to vain speculations and will not help His people (1 Timothy 1:4), fueled by individuals who want to be “Torah teachers.” There is a proper usage of the Torah in contrast to this—“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV)—which is how it is to identify high crimes and prescribe appropriate punishments. As Paul puts it, “the law is laid down[9] not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane” (1 Timothy 1:9, NRSV). One of the main, and most obvious purposes, of reading and studying God’s Torah, is to see how it identifies and condemns sin.

The able teacher of the Torah should be able to explain how the Messiah has come to die in our stead, because of our common human inability to obey. Our disobedience to the Torah should lead us to the Messiah and us pleading for God’s mercy and deliverance (cf. Romans 10:4, Grk.; Galatians 3:24). But for some reason or another, the false teachers Timothy had to contend with in Ephesus were not interested in these things. They wanted “meaningless talk” (1 Timothy 1:6, NRSV/TNIV), having “lost themselves in endless words” (Phillips New Testament).[10]

False Teachings and Myths—Then and Now

We should not be too surprised if some of the spiritual battles, that Timothy encountered in First Century Ephesus, are very similar to what continues today within some assemblies of Believers. False teaching will always exist as either an external or internal foe, which is to be identified and confronted. Those in positions of leadership and teaching are to take charge of situations when they encounter them, not just as shepherds, but as Paul says, “I urged you...” (1 Timothy 1:3). He uses the verb parangellō, which was commonly employed in classical terms “generally, to give the word, give orders, of the general” (LS).[11] Those who are responsible for instructing and mentoring God’s people in a full time capacity are, in many ways, to serve them like a general would his army. This requires skill and eloquence, but sometimes sternness in confronting problems. (Even though, coming from a Navy family, I do think that the Lord probably has “admirals” too).

Paul’s warning is that the false teachers have wandered away from “the aim of our charge [which] is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5, RSV). They want to be Torah teachers, but they lack the ability to really understand the holy text which they try to interpret. In a First Century setting, it could very well have been that many of the teachers were not only not adequately taught or trained, but that they might even have struggled with basic literacy. While being a teacher or rabbi in the ancient Synagogue was most admirable, a self-deceived person will cut corners in order to gain a following. It does not matter if such a “teacher” shares things that are inappropriate, grossly exaggerated, or just outright made up. What matters is being an influence. Timothy certainly had a mess to clean up in ancient Ephesus, precisely because the false teachers “set themselves up as experts on religious issues, but haven't the remotest idea of what they're holding forth with such imposing eloquence” (1 Timothy 1:7, The Message).

Were the false teachers even concerned about making sure that what they shared was accurate? Were they at all careful with evaluating whether or not what they taught was edifying to the Body of Messiah? Timothy was charged by Paul to challenge what these teachers had done, but not so much directly. Paul informs him instead, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Timothy 6:13). While there would have probably been some instances of direct confrontation, and 1 Timothy 3 records how some new leaders had to be chosen to replace old ones, most of the attention of the Ephesians needed to be refocused back onto the Scriptures and to diligent, consistent teaching from the Word. As this would take place, the bankruptcy of the false teachers and their inabilities would naturally be exposed. Timothy and the Ephesians are instructed,

“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Spiritual warfare and confronting the Devil’s schemes have been around for a very long time. Unfortunately, there will always be disputes, envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction among groupings of those who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This most frequently happens because people forget about the centrality of Yeshua in their walk of faith. And it is also most unfortunate that some of the same scene of 1 Timothy 1:3-11 can be tangibly observed today.

It hits our family ministry particularly hard when we read a passage like 1 Timothy 1:3-11, because when you consider the warnings against weird myths exaggerated from the Torah, contrasted against sound moral and ethical teaching from the Torah—you can naturally think of many contemporary examples in today’s Messianic movement. You can understand why some people even call it the “Messy-antic” movement. Much of the division, discord, and strife that we have seen over the years is directly rooted in the divergent opinions and strong personalities of those who precisely “want to be teachers of Torah, but they understand neither their own words nor the matters about which they make such emphatic pronouncements” (1 Timothy 1:7, CJB). We have seen this manifested in clever, entertaining teaching styles, and an ability to tickle unsuspecting ears with self-mined “nuggets” of no spiritual value. The conditions mentioned by Paul to Timothy in his second letter have been upon us in full force, with a cadre of advocates to perpetuate an array of false teachings:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

There are many specific examples I could list of false teachers who circulate in the midst of our Messianic faith community, who love the applause, the oohs and ahhs, the adoration they receive, or how they are able to sell large numbers of their CDs or DVDs to finance their enterprises. Many of them claim to be “Torah teachers,” but they are not suited to be called “teachers” of any kind. They will often talk about specific teachings from “the Sages” of Judaism, but then fail to tell us who these Sages specifically are, or provide us references from their teachings or writings. They will focus on mystical and mythical ideas based in the Torah, but not Scripture itself. The pseudo-scholarly babble which they peddle is not engaged with either the Biblical text or substantiated with documentation from real Biblical Studies from the past century. Most disturbing, to be sure, such materials often do not encourage an understanding of the high ethical and moral matters of the Torah, and certainly not “righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness” (1 Timothy 6:11).[12]

The answer to fixing these things, however, is not for us to sit around in some pity party and whine and complain about the problems we have witnessed. Rather, each of us has to expel the required effort to change some of the current religious culture of the Messianic movement. There is a proper or lawful way to use Moses’ Teaching (1 Timothy 1:8)[13] as means of instructing men and women how to live as God’s holy people (Leviticus 19:2; Deuteronomy 28:9), impacting our evil generation. God’s Torah is improperly used when one uses it as a springboard for deriving myths and fairy tales to be easily sold (1 Timothy 1:4).

The answer to fixing some of our challenges is actually quite simple, but profound. We have to be dedicated to have a Messianic movement where we all “stimulate one another to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24), and in living forth those weightier matters of the Torah like “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). We have to focus our attention to the Scriptures, and recognize that anything which takes us away from really being able to demonstrate these qualities to the world, might at times be “fruitless discussion” (1 Timothy 1:6). May the Father grant each of us the discernment we need to accomplish His will!

Fight the Good Fight

Anyone who follows after the Lord Yeshua needs to recognize that those born from above are presently engaged in a spiritual war. This is doubly or triply true of those of us called into full time service as teachers and leaders of the ekklēsia. We all have the firm responsibility, though, of recognizing how “Messiah Yeshua came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15), and how any false teachers, false prophets, or false brethren we may encounter can experience the goodness of salvation and change from their wicked ways. Frequently, though, this does not happen. Instead, faithful Believers have to often confront insidious and ungodly influences, and be ready to combat their negative effects on the unsuspecting, the naive, and the immature. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy, and by extension us today, is to fight the good fight of faith:

“This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight,[14] keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (1 Timothy 1:18-19).

In Timothy’s case, he apparently had some kind of a prophetic word spoken over him, which would serve as definitive personal encouragement to press forward as a leader (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14). Many of us as well, be we Jewish or non-Jewish Believers, have entered into the Messianic movement via unique life circumstances. We know this is where God’s wants us, even though it might be easier at times (and during a weak moment) to think about going back to a more “normal” or “familiar” synagogue or church setting. Some of us know that with all of the potential the Messianic perspective possesses—especially with the restoration of all Israel on the horizon—that we really are in for the battle of our lives!

Paul communicates the seriousness of the spiritual war that is waged, by using some familiar terms that have influenced modern English. 1 Timothy 1:18 employs the verb strateuō[15] and the noun strateia, from which “to strategize” and “strategy” are obviously derived. Another related term, stratiōtēs, appears in Paul’s second correspondence to Timothy. Paul details how the life of faith frequently involves suffering is like a soldier in battle, is like an athletic competition, and is also like being a diligent farmer tending his crops:

“You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Messiah Yeshua. The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Messiah Yeshua. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier. Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules. The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops. Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything” (2 Timothy 2:1-7).

These different descriptions of what it means to be faithful to the Lord, stand in considerable contrast to the qualities of the false teacher—who is a false teacher precisely because he lacks patience. A soldier is required to remain at his post, following the orders of the general without question. A soldier has been trained to fight with skill, and those who lack the courage and commitment wash out. Athletes who break the rules are disqualified from competition. Farmers who do not tend to the field not only do not see their crops grow; they do not eat!

What does this say about those who serve the Lord as His foot soldiers? We each have to endure suffering due to the travails of spiritual warfare. Yet, if we are committed to serving God in whatever capacity we might find ourselves, then as we step out in faith and trust, He will prevail. Teachers especially must be committed to the work in which the Holy One of Israel has called them, as they must understand how paramount it is that they are accountable for a stricter judgment (James 3:1). As important as many areas of service are, expositing on the Word of God and offering applications for a modern-day setting, will affect how people make life choices and decisions. Teaching from the Scriptures is by no means so one can promote myths, gain a following, and accrue great riches (1 Timothy 1:4; 6:5)!

The Ongoing Battle

Recognizing that there is a spiritual war waging—much of it seen, and much of it unseen—inside and outside of the assembly, what should today’s Believers be doing to mitigate the damage and fallout? How should we be able to confront nefarious underminings from without, and blindsided bombardments from without? Certainly, employing the weapons of spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:12-17) and learning to fight better and more effectively is a place for each of us to start. In our current day, the only collateral damage we might expect to receive in fighting the Adversary is that we might get some people, who have been influenced by him, upset and mad at us. When you confront bad teachings and myths, false teachers whose reputation and income are at stake, will frequently attack back at you.

For the future, though, we are steadily approaching the End of the Age and the return of Messiah Yeshua. Within the Book of Revelation the saints are said to hold on to their faith most strongly, in order to overcome the wiles of the Devil. John records, “they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death” (Revelation 12:11). Of course, even if one does not face martyrdom, we should still gain inspiration from this to press forward in our faith! We are to have each experienced (1) the redeeming power of the sacrificial blood of the Lamb, Yeshua, (2) have a great testimony of salvation, and (3) not love our lives more than being willing to die for the Messiah. The Apostle Paul knew that to live is Messiah and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21), and wanted to be conformed to His example so much that he even wanted to die and be resurrected in a manner similar to his Lord:

“[T]hat I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:10-11).

The life of faith is not easy, but if we are able to place the Messiah Yeshua at the center of who we are, and we wear the armor of God, then the diligence and perseverance to fight the good fight of faith on a consistent basis makes the army of God unbeatable. Of course, there may be some setbacks along the way, and some casualties of spiritual war will be encountered on the battlefield—but in the long run, victory is promised to the saints. We have to pray for the perseverance to endure in a long struggle, because not only is careful strategy and discernment necessary (cf. 1 Timothy 1:18), but as Paul also says to Timothy, agōnizou ton kalon agōna or “agonize the good agony” (1 Timothy 6:12, EXP).[16] The life of faith will be difficult, but when set in view of the eternal King, our Messiah Yeshua, each of us can make it to the end:

“Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Messiah Yeshua, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1 Timothy 6:12-16).

Faithfully wage the war, and fight the good fight!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 20

[1]

This article originally appeared in the August 2010 issue of Outreach Israel News.

[2] Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:8.

[3] Also detailing the armor of God is Wisdom 5:17-20 in the Apocrypha:

“The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor, and will arm all creation to repel his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate, and wear impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible shield, and sharpen stern wrath for a sword, and creation will join with him to fight against the madmen.”

For a further evaluation of the armor of God, consult the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[4] Ephesians 6:17 employs rhēma Theou and is likely the spoken gospel message of salvation (cf. Ephesians 5:26). The principal way this is to be accomplished is obviously using the written Word of God.

[5] Grk. muthois kai genealogiais aperantois.

[6] The source text only has tisin or “certain persons” (1 Timothy 1:3, RSV), which is important if females were involved in helping to perpetuate the false teaching (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12; 5:13).

[7] Gordon D. Fee, New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), pp 41-42.

Given the fact that the false teachers are not lauded for their knowledge (1 Timothy 6:30), if any ancient extra-Biblical works were considered by them, they could have easily misunderstood them in addition to the Scriptures themselves. There is a proper place for certain bodies of extra-Biblical literature as background material or contemporary history for understanding the Scriptures.

[8] In the estimation of William D. Mounce, “This suggests that the Ephesian heresy was not a well-formulated doctrine but rather a collection of loosely associated ideas without internal consistency” (Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 46 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000], pp 290-291).

[9] Grk. keimai; “of laws...the law is laid down...the penalty is fixed by law” (LS, 425).

AMG further describes, “In Matt. 3:10 and Luke 3:9, in regard to the ax that lies at the root of the trees, it does not simply mean that it is lying there, but also implies the necessity of its being taken up and used” (Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 855).

[10] For further elaboration on the false teaching in Ephesus, consult the commentary The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee (forthcoming).

[11] LS, 594.

[12] The FAQ section of this publication includes some entries on the kinds of popular “teachings” promoted today by some of these people.

Also consult the article “The Effect of Mysticism and Gnosticism on the Messianic Movement” by J.K. McKee.

[13] The term nomimōs means, “pert. to being in accordance with normal procedure, in accordance with rule(s)/law” (BDAG, 676).

[14] Grk. hina strateuē en autais tēn kalēn strateian.

[15] “to serve in war, serve as a soldier, do military service, take the field, march” (LS, 748).

[16] Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 386.

-21-

Torah and the Holy Spirit 2010

Mark Huey

“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Romans 8:14, NRSV).

One of the most controversial debates that circulates in the broad Messianic community of faith is the validity and relevance of the commandments and instructions of the Torah or Law of Moses, the Books of Genesis-Deuteronomy, to all of the people of God.[1] For 3,300 years, followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have recognized these Scriptures as being foundational to what is commonly referred to as the Judeo-Christian worldview. While diverse Jewish and Christian traditions have approached the Torah from some different angles, large sectors of both the Synagogue and Church have advocated that Moses’ Teaching is to guide a substantial part of our ethical and moral compass, in order to live a happy and productive life here on Earth.

It is hard to deny that Yeshua the Messiah required His followers to not only heed the Torah of Moses, but that rewards and penalties would be assigned to those who spoke in favor or spoke against its commandments (Matthew 5:17-19). All Believers must recognize that His sacrifice for sin is something that atones for our common human transgression of the Torah (Colossians 2:14). Whether one is a Jew who has been taught the Torah from birth, or a pagan with a conscience given to him by a Creator that impresses upon the mind that certain things are wrong (cf. Romans 2:14-15), all people require the redemption offered in Yeshua.

The controversy, that has heightened in modern times, has arisen precisely because of the large influx of non-Jewish Believers into the Messianic movement. These are largely evangelical Christians who not only want to be enriched by their Hebraic Roots, but who want to live the way Yeshua lived, and follow the Torah the way that He did. They believe themselves to be members of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12) or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), and that Moses’ Teaching is a part of their heritage the same as any Jewish person (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). As this has taken place, many Jewish Believers, including some dear friends that I know personally, have welcomed families like ours with open arms. They are most eager to join with us as a part of the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB) that has been created in the Messiah, and they want non-Jewish Believers to take a hold of their heritage in Israel. The fellowship and close friendship I have developed with such people has been a great and cherished blessing!

At the same time, this has not always occurred, because many Jewish Believers want the Messianic movement to be something that is almost exclusively Jewish. Other than a few moral commandments being relevant for non-Jewish Believers, they claim that families like ours probably should not be considering the Torah as being that valid for us.

The Cleansing Work of the Holy Spirit

In the past century, we have witnessed significant events in terms of the return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land and the creation of the State of Israel. Many Christians have wholeheartedly repented of past sins of anti-Semitism, with many recognizing a forgotten or overlooked heritage that they have in Israel. With the expansion of the Messianic movement over the past fifteen to twenty years, many Believers are beginning to recognize that more is going on than meets the eye—but not enough have really been willing to explore some of the potential, fuller ramifications of this, and facilitate Messianic congregations and fellowships where all of God’s people are welcome to have a place.

The Messianic world presently experiences a huge array of debates from its Jewish and non-Jewish members, some of them related to power and influence, and almost all of them focused around “who knows best.” Rather than trying to explore the Scriptures, and really consider how we can all leave our personal prejudices and uncertainties in the past, unfairly criticizing others with whom you disagree has been something our family has witnessed for all the time we have been Messianic. It has almost become a spectator sport, for which a player’s skills need to be honed.

Surveying the Biblical and historical records of the complicated relationship between Jews and Christians, surely it is time for those who claim to love and follow the Holy One of Israel to resolve their petty differences. We need to come together in the unity proclaimed by the Messiah Yeshua, who commanded His disciples to love one another:

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another...This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you” (John 13:34-35; 15:12-14).

Most lamentably, the kind of unconditional love that not only should be evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit residing in the hearts of the redeemed—but also should cause brothers and sisters to die for each other—does not typically manifest itself in the Messianic community. Rather than today’s Messianic Believers emphasizing the common faith we are to have in the Messiah as being most important, other issues are instead considered paramount. While some of these issues are important, their adherents frequently overstate their case, and take people away from the key imperatives of the good news. In terms of the Torah’s relevance for God’s people, the Scriptures are clear that with forgiveness in the Messiah (cf. Luke 22:20) comes a supernatural transcription of His Law onto a new heart of flesh:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances” (Ezekiel 36:25-27; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34).

No born again Believer honestly argues that the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to only one sector of humanity. Speaking to the Jerusalem Council, the Apostle Peter was clear to say, “God, who knows the heart, testified to them [the nations] giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us [the Jews]” (Acts 15:9). All of us, be we Jewish or non-Jewish Believers, live in a time when the Spirit of God will clearly be placed within a new heart of flesh in order for the recipients to faithfully walk in His commandments. This is neither a strict obligation, nor is it an option to be refused. Following God’s Torah is something that naturally comes by the conviction of God’s Spirit. The cleansing work of God’s Spirit, albeit upon diverse groups of people in different stages and levels of developing maturity, is universal.

Toward the Restoration of All Things

For years, the conundrum, about who was to pursue and follow the Torah’s instruction, personally persisted for me. As a Believer in the Messiah Yeshua whose family entered into the Messianic movement in 1995, I was led to a fuller understanding of the Scriptures as I was forced to consider a concept known as the “restoration of all things.” At Shavuot/Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out, the Apostle Peter proclaimed that a period known as the “restoration of all things” must occur before the Messiah can return:

“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Yeshua, the Messiah appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time” (Acts 3:19-21).

Acknowledging some of the things taking place in the Messianic community, with many Jews coming to faith in Yeshua and Christians embracing their Hebraic Roots—how serious is it for people of faith if we have really entered into the period of restoration of all things? What clues do the Prophets give us about what God’s people are to expect?

Since the ancient prophets of God had been predicting this period of restoration down through the ages, what are some of the main things that today’s Believers should be considering? If we have the Holy Spirit inside of us, leading us in the ways of righteousness, then we should be preparing ourselves for what is in store. Perhaps one of the most important concepts that needs to be embraced is how the Prophet Malachi expresses how fathers and children will be reconciled before the great and terrible Day of the Lord:

“Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:4-6).

While this should certainly be applied in terms of familial unity and love, it may also have to do with differences expressed across the generations—in particular how the final generation will be obeying God the same way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were faithful to Him (cf. Revelation 12:17; 14:12). Malachi exhorted his audience to remember the Torah of Moses, precisely so that the Lord would not have to punish His people for disobedience. Malachi 4:4-6 has been a very important word for my family and me, as we have desired to serve the Lord will all our hearts (Joshua 24:15). Even though we had family roots in some Christian theological traditions that never advocated that the Law of Moses was fully abolished, and we did believe that the Old Testament “moral law” was still to be followed. After all, the Spirit uniquely convicted all of us that we needed to consider many more of the commandments and precepts of the Torah as being relevant and important to keep. The Torah itself is clear that its instructions are not to be too difficult to follow:

“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it” (Deuteronomy 30:11-16).

Following His affirmation of coming to fulfill, and not abolish the Torah, Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chs. 5-7 specifies some of the Law’s highest principles that must be followed and respected without question. The relationship we have with God and with other people is extremely critical, and throughout Yeshua’s teachings He emphasizes the Torah’s weightier matters such as “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23; cf. Hosea 6:6), which we must never lose sight of. All Messianic Believers that I know, who diligently want to keep the Torah, do so not because they feel “ordered” or “dictated” to—but because they are being conformed to the image of Yeshua who followed the Torah perfectly:

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29).

The essence of the Torah is love for God and neighbor,[2] and while there are many aspects of Torah observance that involve things like the seventh-day Sabbath/Shabbat, the appointed times, and the kosher dietary laws—truly following the Law requires men and women of faith to be filled with the grace, mercy, and compassion of their Creator.

Some Limitations from Today’s Messianic Jews

Many within today’s Messianic Judaism, especially given the sizeable influx of non-Jewish Believers into their congregations, have begun to strongly assert that following the Torah is only something that the Jewish people are called to do. They say it would be best for families like ours to return to our previous evangelical Christian experience, enriched by our Hebraic Roots, but not actively doing things that they believe make the Jewish people “distinct.” If we were to keep the seventh-day Shabbat, for example, some Messianic Jews would say that our family might be trying to replace them as special or chosen in God’s eyes.

The very fact that our family would be led to fellowship together with Jewish Believers, and remain in the Messianic movement in spite of a few unwelcoming tendencies, very much dispels the idea that we are somehow trying to replace the Jews as being special or chosen by the Lord. Yeshua is clear that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). The Jewish people deserve great honor and respect, but what makes them distinct is really not Torah keeping, but instead being recognized as the source of every person’s redemption—as Yeshua Himself was a Jew!

The arguments commonly offered against a person such as myself desiring to live a holy life, obeying God’s commandments, I find to be very weak. I have heard Messianic Jewish teachers tell me many times that I am just one of many “Jewish wannabees,” even though my family does not at all live a culturally Jewish lifestyle, as much as we do appreciate many mainline Jewish traditions. But to them, things like the appointed times or kosher eating are culturally Jewish things, whereas to me they are Biblical ordinances that all who follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to heed regardless of background. The Torah itself directed Ancient Israel to acknowledge how there was “one law” or “one statute” for the native as well as the sojourner within the community.[3] Consequently, some Messianic Jews, who once emphasized that our family was an equal part of the Commonwealth of Israel along with them, are now backing off, because of a few problems that have been created. It is sad to say this, but such people really just do not know how we can all work together as fellow members of the Body of Messiah, in mixed congregations, with the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding us and with all demonstrating mutual honor and respect.

Deuteronomy chs. 27-28 teach us that those, who obey the Lord and seek to follow His commandments, will be blessed by Him. Those who disobey the Lord will be cursed by Him. Even with faith in Messiah Yeshua, where there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1), disobedience to God’s commandments can still cause there to be barriers between ourselves and Him, and He will penalize us the same as any Earthly parent. When I have been told by various Messianic Jewish teachers or leaders that the Torah is not a part of my spiritual heritage, I responded by saying that my family was bound and determined to receive the blessings of God. Their resistance to my view was almost like them trying to convince me to choose death rather than choose life—or at least a life of being largely separated from the intimate presence of my Creator. For such people to argue that obedience to the Torah was not for me, and in fact disobedience was for me, was most absurd.

We do not need to get mad or upset at some of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders who oppose non-Jewish Believers keeping the Torah. Many of these people, I feel, are still carrying around some spiritual baggage, including ancient hurts, rejections, being spurned by their own people, and possibly even having some open doors to demonic harassment that they do not know about.[4] It would be too much for families like ours to expect all Messianic Jews to welcome us into their congregations with open arms as equal brothers and sisters right now, when many of them are still nursing their wounds incurred from declaring Messiah to their non-believing family and friends. Many of them are just not prepared to deal with the “Gentile question.” However, just like our spiritual forbearers, we are called to have great faith in the Holy One of Israel and recognize that His plan for the ages will come to pass. If you discern that today’s Messianic Judaism has some limitations that need to be worked through over time, our job is not to harbor bitterness or resentment, but instead simply love those who still have many issues to work through, giving them the space they need.

Torah and the Holy Spirit: Maturing in Him

How important is it for all Believers to follow God’s Torah? It is most easy to discern how since the resurrection and ascension of Yeshua, that all of His followers are to be filled with the Holy Spirit. There is an abundance of Scripture references that indicate how a born again Believer is to walk by the power of the Spirit (i.e., Acts 2:4; 4:8; 9:17; 13:9; 13:52; Ephesians 5:18). What the Holy Spirit is to do in regenerated hearts of flesh is most critical to understand. After we are forgiven of our sins, we are to have a mind that is focused on God and His ways, diligently living in obedience to Him:

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Messiah, he does not belong to Him” (Romans 8:1-9; cf. Galatians 5:16-26).

Those of us, who are born again followers of the Messiah Yeshua, are to consciously realize how “the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants” (CJB). C.E.B. Cranfield makes the excellent point of how, “God’s purpose in ‘condemning’ sin was that His law’s requirement might be fulfillment in us, that is, that His law might be established in the sense of at last being truly and sincerely obeyed—the fulfillment of the promises of Jer 31.33 and Ezek 36.26f.”[5]

While born again Believers do have to mature in their faith, and we will make mistakes along the way, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit resident in your heart to do anything that is not compliant with the Word of God. If the Spirit of God is ruling and reigning in your heart, the Spirit will not do anything that is in direct defiance of the Torah of God. The presence of the Spirit inside of the Believer’s heart is to continually convict him to seek more of God’s will and God’s ways, and this will include directing a person to study and meditate upon the Torah, which in many cases involves being revealed previously unknown commandments, statutes, and decrees.

As serious as it is for me to want to see my family blessed, from obeying God and not disobeying Him, it is more serious for us to all understand that walking in the Spirit will naturally lead us toward focusing on the Torah. If a born again Believer is truly walking in the Spirit and being led by the Spirit, then he will want to know more about how he can please his Heavenly Father. He will want to know more about proper obedience. If we are willfully deviating from His commandments in the Torah, and we disregard the Law of Moses as having any relevance for our lives, then we are not being led by the Spirit. Disobedience may simply be a momentary battle with the human flesh that needs to be overcome,[6] or something far more serious as we may need to check to see if we have the mind of the Messiah (1 Corinthians 2:16).

A true Torah observance, on the part of God’s people filled with His Spirit, is going to be far more concerned with matters of ethics, morality, and in accomplishing the weightier matters than just focusing on some of the minutiae of outward deeds. Many of those who claim to be keeping the Torah in the Messianic world, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, do not really focus their attention on the compassion or support that God expects His people to demonstrate to one another, and to outsiders. Deuteronomy 10:12 admonishes,

“Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

My friends, service to the Lord is far more encompassing than just showing up to Shabbat services on Saturday morning! The Lord requires His people to be concerned with enacting His justice in the fallen world in which we live, and demonstrate His goodness via tangible acts of kindness and mercy. Even though it is rather en vogue at times for Messianics to say that the Christian Church is “lawless,” evangelical Believers who value the Old Testament often understand what it means to live forth the Torah’s imperatives of love for God and neighbor better than some of today’s Messianics. However, my family is of the strong conviction that given time and maturation, the Messianic movement will demonstrate an excellence that fairly balances all aspects of the Torah as being important to follow as we emulate Yeshua and are conformed to His image (Romans 8:29).

Yeshua the Messiah requires each of us to walk the narrow path toward the narrow gate.[7] Moving forward toward the finish line, we will steadily learn more about the ways of our Creator, as His Spirit transcribes His instruction on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33). For some people, this occurs at a faster pace than others. But the key is that we do not stray from the path—as the flesh has a tendency to make choices contrary to the will of the Spirit—which only leads to error, suffering, and possibly travail. As time moves ahead and our Messianic faith community grows and develops, more people will be open to the message of Torah obedience. This requires those of us who are already Messianic to make sure that we are not only keeping things like Shabbat or the appointed times, but that submitting ourselves to Moses’ Teaching makes us more sensitive to being conduits of God’s love for all of His human creatures.

Let us diligently pray that all of those who call upon the Holy One of Israel be filled up with His Holy Spirit! God’s Spirit will not contradict God’s Torah, unless fallen human flesh intervenes. May we all submit our wills to Him that His will shall be done, because in so doing, the unity among brethren that He desires will be evident. It will confirm that we are Yeshua’s disciples because of the love we have for one another!

Let us seek to follow the Torah as He followed it, and allow our character to be demonstrated not only by outward obedience, but an internal transformation that can be sensitive to the unique needs and sensitivities of all. If we are able to do this, then we can see barriers of human pride and arrogance steadily torn down: be they Christians who are opposed to any keeping of the Law, or Messianic Jews who do not want to see non-Jewish Believers claim a spiritual heritage within Israel.

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 21

[1] This article originally appeared in the September 2010 issue of Outreach Israel News.

[2] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.

[3] Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16, 29-30.

[4] This would be particularly true of Messianic Jews who have a family background in Kaballah, the mystical Jewish tradition stemming from the occult.

[5] C.E.B. Cranfield, International Critical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (London: T&T Clark, 1975), 384.

[6] Ibid., Cranfield further observes,

“[plērōthē] is not to be taken to imply that the faithful fulfill the law’s requirement perfectly...They fulfil it in the sense that they do have a real faith in God (which is the law’s basic demand), in the sense that their lives are definitely turned in the direction of obedience, that they do sincerely desire to obey and are earnestly striving to advance even nearer to perfection.”

[7] Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:24.

-22-

Our Heavenly Father's Heart: The Messianic Restoration

2012

Mark Huey

From the Holy Scriptures of Genesis to Revelation, imparted to us by human vessels inspired by the Holy Spirit of God—there exists a seamless, incremental love story, embedded with a faith component, which depicts the heart of a loving and compassionate Father for His chosen children.[1] Since the Lord God is the epitome of unconditional love (1 John 4:8), He has provided humanity with a sovereign, providential outline, consisting of pertinent knowledge and instructions—that describe not only what He has predetermined to accomplish from eternity past—but also the responsibilities incumbent upon people, to realize their individual and corporate destinies. When we commit ourselves to read the Bible, the periods of ancient history that it covers, and the diversity of literature types that it incorporates—men and women of faith should be overwhelmed as to the genius and wisdom of their Creator, in communicating the concepts needed for a useful and beneficial life on Earth, and beyond.

Beginning with the foundational building blocks of the Torah (Pentateuch), affirmed by the Historical Books, Prophets, Writings and Wisdom literature—further by the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles—the Holy One has given people sufficient guidance through His Word. Yet, even with the Sacred Scriptures placed as the central feature of our faith, He has not fully revealed all knowledge of the secret things (Deuteronomy 29:29). This is because He desires His children to live by faith, trusting in Him, in order to receive the righteousness He requires of those who will eternally reside in His presence. This freewill human choice, to believe in the loving Creator God, was first demonstrated by Abraham (Genesis 15:6), confirmed by the Prophet Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:4), and then reiterated by figures such as the Apostle Paul (Galatians 2:20; 3:11; Romans 1:17) and the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:38). Naturally, after a person receives the blessed assurance of God’s love and righteousness by faith in Him alone, it is not only most prudent, but steadfastly required—that in order to perpetuate one’s communion with the Heavenly Father, and in essence, steadily discover more of His revealed will—that faithful people diligently study the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-11) for all that they entail. Paul’s mentoring words to Timothy are most useful to remember here:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness, so that the person belonging to God may be capable, fully equipped for every good deed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, TLV).

Faithful Believers, by doggedly studying the entire counsel of God—coupled with the key inspiration only available via the indwelling Holy Spirit (cf. Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 14:26)—by His grace are able to be shown more of His plan for salvation history, and aspects of what His sovereign design is for His Creation and the people, families, communities, and nations which occupy Planet Earth. Throughout the course of Biblical history, many of the ancient Prophets indicated that a critical component of the Father’s will was to eventually return the Earth and humanity to an idyllic state, as first witnessed at the beginning, so that the intimacy of communion between Himself and people and nature at large, can be recaptured—the fullness of shalom. But in order to bring about such an ultimate “restoration of all things” at some point in the future, it was first necessary for the supreme sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah to be provided, to offer permanent atonement for the sin of humankind. The words of the Apostle Peter are highly important for us to each contemplate, as we regard where the world currently stands between Yeshua’s ascension into Heaven, and His Second Coming:

“But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Messiah would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Yeshua, the Messiah appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time” (Acts 3:18-21).

For nearly two millennia, the message that the Messiah of Israel and Savior of humanity has come, has gone forth to be declared to the world, incorporating many millions from all tongues, tribes, and nations into the company of redeemed (cf. Revelation 7:9). Yeshua the Messiah died for human sin, He rose from the dead, and He reigns at the right hand of the Father (Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22) awaiting His return. During the past several decades, with the advent of the Messianic movement—consisting of significant numbers of Jewish Believers in Yeshua, coupled with a wide variety of non-Jewish Believers embracing their Hebraic Roots in a very tangible way—dedicated pursuers of the Most High have been patiently, but concentratedly, waiting for the moment when the Kingdom is to be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6). However, because the enemy of our souls is knowledgeable about the Scriptures, and has been certainly witnessing the work of the Holy Spirit as the restoration of Israel proceeds, he will surely attempt to thwart the progress made. His traditional tactics are to foment strife, division, and discord—which is surely present among many of those called into the Messianic movement. Suffice it to say, due to many issues because of the complicated nature of Jewish and Christian relations over the centuries, some serious challenges must be overcome.

Mercifully, with a comprehensive understanding of what has been revealed in the Scriptures, as enlightened by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, the Father has given His people not only the written blueprint for what He is doing during this Messianic restoration, but also the spiritual insight and gifting to successfully contend with Satan’s strategy. However, if the Word of God is being misinterpreted or misapplied, due to false conclusions or a biased perspective, then misguided distractions will impede and deter the speed and the progress of the restoration He has planned.

Mutual Submission

One of the most important, yet frequently under-discussed and seldom contemplated key theological concepts—by the considerable bulk of today’s broad Messianic movement, from Messianic Judaism to the One Law/One Torah and Two-House sub-movements—is the foundational Apostolic concept of mutual submission. Certainly, each one of us, as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, is aware of the inherent need and requirement to serve one another, through acts of kindness, mercy, helps, and general assistance. Concurrent with this, there is an overwhelming need for each one of us, in spite of our personal differences, to exhibit a great deal of respect and honor to one another.

As the good news of the Messiah Yeshua spread beyond the borders of the Land of Israel in the First Century, it is surely witnessed in the Apostolic Scriptures how there were many challenges seen within the fledgling ekklēsia. There were surely many not only cultural, but spiritual and ideological prejudices, for the ancient Jewish and Greek and Roman Believers to overcome, in order to be one Body of Messiah as their Savior Himself had desired (John 17:22). Having placed their trust in Him, and being regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit, such Believers were directed to embrace a humble and respectful attitude in their relations with one another. In his lengthy Epistle to the Romans, which addressed some of the significant salvation-historical issues regarding the redemption of Israel (Romans chs. 9-11), the Apostle Paul issued some important direction toward the Roman Believers, which every generation of Messiah followers since has had to integrate into their respective walks:

“For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith” (Romans 12:3).

By admonishing the Romans to not think too highly of themselves, Paul was elaborating upon a key principle of mutual honor, respect, and submission which is detectable throughout his letters. The foundational, familial relationship of how husbands and wives are to relate to one another, as co-leaders of the family, is something that is to be then surely manifested among all people within the Messianic community:

“[B]e subject to one another in the fear of Messiah” (Ephesians 5:21).

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul elucidates on the need for fellow Believers to serve one another, placing someone else’s needs ahead of one’s own. He substantiates this by emphasizing how Yeshua the Messiah, existing as God in the Heavenly realm, humbled Himself by taking on human form, and experienced the most ultimate of all humiliations by being brutally executed and shamed upon a Roman cross:

“Therefore if there is any encouragement in Messiah, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete, that you be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or empty deceit, but in humility of mind consider one another better than himself, each of you not only looking out for his own interests, but each of you also for the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which was also in Messiah Yeshua, who, existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human being, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:1-8, author’s rendering from Philippians for the Practical Messianic).

Considering how the Lord Yeshua was willing to humble Himself, and take on human form—how much more should His followers, in emulating Him, at least try to lay aside selfish ambition and conceit, and sincerely submit mutually one to another, in order to display and represent His love (Philippians 1:17; James 3:14, 16)? By wisely and discerningly applying this loving, humble approach with one another, the Father’s heart will be pleased, as His will is accomplished during this fomenting season of a Messianic restoration. Yet in order to do this properly, this means that each one of us will need to give up something from our religious, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds—because the work and service of the good news is the most important. It will also mean that groups of people within the Messianic movement who have been marginalized will need to be elevated. Most importantly, though, a mutual submission ideology should enable us to see that each one of us has gifts and talents and skills which need to be employed for the benefit of all in the Body of Messiah.

Equality for All

Surely, within much of the modern Messianic movement—as much as there was in the First Century Messianic movement—there was substantial, divergent opinion about the different roles of people in the Body of Messiah. There are, however, two distinct vantage points from which we can consider such roles. Are such roles determined primarily by ethnicity, culture, and gender—or are they determined by the abilities and personal tools granted to every person by God?

Within the Apostolic Scriptures, there is an emphasis detected that not all of God’s people are exactly the same, because the various spiritual gifts, natural talents, and other skills, will vary (1 Corinthians 12). At the exact same time, however, as each man or woman has certain talents which can benefit their brothers and sisters in the Messiah, what is emphasized far more frequently is the unity and commonality that such people have—rather than what makes them different. Undoubtedly, in the Father’s heart, He is surely blessed when He witnesses His children respecting and honoring one another, using their gifts and abilities to serve and bless one another, and contribute to a spiritual environment where all can mature in His love and grace:

“Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Romans 12:6-18).

The quintessential declaration, of equality of all of those who are in Messiah Yeshua, is witnessed in Galatians 3:28. It is widely agreed among examiners that this single statement directly subverted an ancient Jewish prayer (t.Berachot 6:18) that declared the superiority of Jewish males above all other groups of people:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yeshua” (Galatians 3:28).

Obviously, a verse like Galatians 3:28 cannot be viewed as abolish or erasing all distinctions among people. At the same time, though, one’s personal ethnic, cultural, or gender differences can be said to matter much less to God than they often matter to the people who hold them as being important! They do get blurred in light of the common problem that all people have in needing to be redeemed from sin. Recognizing this key, foundational truth, is something that is quite difficult for people across the different sectors of the Messianic movement—including the sectors that tend to dislike or despise the others. Who we are as people is to be first established in Yeshua the Messiah, and from that our individual differences are to be used as tools by which all in the community of faith can be served and blessed. Learning how to do this, and stopping much of the language that intends to divide people rather than unite people, is a long term battle to be fought without any immediate signs of stopping.

Torah for All

In addition to a mutually submissive and equality for all ideology needing to be present among today’s Messianic Believers, the Lord has also emphasized throughout His Word that the same, basic set of Instruction applies to all of His people. While there are various natural differences detectable among the commandments of His Torah, specifically between groups of people in Ancient Israel like the Levitical priesthood, and regulations pertaining to the sexual anatomy of males and females—on the whole all who were a part of the general population of Ancient Israel, whether they were native born or sojourner, were expected to follow Moses’ Teaching. A firm emphasis that is seen in the Torah is the statement,

“You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them” (Numbers 15:29).

This principle applies to how all the instructions “that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:23), were liable to be learned and adhered to by the native and sojourner in Ancient Israel. Yet, because of the human proclivity to disobey, and/or knowing how sojourners in Ancient Israel would have had a tendency to not be as familiar with commandments as natives, there as a sacrifice available for the inadvertent or unintentional sins of the people (Numbers 15:24-26). While such people needed to be learning and keeping God’s Torah, there was definitely mercy in the form of an animal sacrifice available for those who would falter.

What was not available, for those in the community of Ancient Israel, was an animal sacrifice which would be able to cover intentional sins committed by people. It was not until the Lamb of God Himself, Yeshua the Messiah, was sacrificed that a permanent atonement could be fully available for anyone. In the estimation of the Apostle Paul, while all have sinned or violated the Law of God, Yeshua’s sacrifice is available to provide each of us with eternal redemption:

“But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Yeshua the Messiah for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Messiah Yeshua; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed” (Romans 3:21-25).

There are many people in today’s Messianic Judaism, who deny the thrust of a Torah passage like Numbers 15:29, which prescribes the same sacrifice for all in the community of Ancient Israel, for failing to follow Moses’ Teaching. They believe that God’s Torah is really to only be followed by the Jewish people. While those from the nations, who come to faith in Yeshua the Messiah, are to surely appreciate the Torah as Bible history and be guided by its moral and ethical principles—anything beyond this is often considered to be an erasure of Jewish identity. Some think that non-Jewish Believers embracing things like keeping the seventh-day Sabbath/Shabbat, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, or eating kosher, is a bad thing. At the same time, though, the Prophets of Israel declared that in the Last Days the nations would actually come to Zion and be taught by the Torah (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4). Even though such a prophetic expectation has been traditionally declared every time the Torah scroll is brought out before the congregation in Shabbat services in synagogues worldwide, far too much of the Messianic world has yet to really consider its importance for what is happening today with non-Jewish Believers flooding the Messianic movement! Furthermore to be considered could be the word of Zechariah 8:23:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”

Holy Spirit Empowerment

The overwhelming weight of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation confirm to readers that the Almighty’s objectives and plans for His chosen ones are without deviation, but understanding what the Father is doing requires enlightenment from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Yeshua communicated the following to His Disciples at the Last Supper:

“Yeshua answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful” (John 14:23-27).

Thankfully, in order to comprehend and adhere to what the Holy One is in the process of accomplishing via the end-time Messianic restoration each of us is participating in, He has empowered His people with supernatural enablement to not only understand what He has declared, but to complete the mission. Quite notable, though, for each of us to remember, is how Yeshua the Messiah instructed,

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17).

By abiding in the Vine, Yeshua (John 15), Believers will be conformed to His image (Romans 8:29) through the sanctification process, and will learn to yield their wills to the promptings and leadings of the Holy Spirit. This will involve an innate compulsion to not only love God and others, but to obey His Instructions. Yeshua the Messiah explained this perfectly:

“Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you” (John 15:9-12).

God’s love story continues, with the recognition that adhering to His commandments, epitomized by love one for another—with the Body of Messiah mutually and equally submitted one to another—to help bring about the restoration so dear to the Father’s heart. It will culminate in the return of Yeshua the Messiah. Our never ending challenge, as followers of the Messiah, is to wholeheartedly embrace the Father’s will and continue to submit our will to His—as ultimately demonstrated by Yeshua’s willingness to offer His body as a blood sacrifice for the sin of humanity (Matthew 26:39). If we are able to be obedient to the Lord, not only will He be pleased, but each of us will have the privilege and distinct honor to participate in aspects of the “restoration of all things.” Each of us, who compose today’s emerging Messianic movement, should consider the high necessity of being the fullness of what is needed to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6; cf. Romans 11:25ff). After all, when the Messiah finally returns, He will be welcomed by a dedicated and thankful body of saints who have trusted in Him and obeyed the Torah’s commandments (Revelation 12:17; 14:12)!

ENDNOTES FOR Chapter 22

[1]

This article originally appeared in the July 2012 issue of Outreach Israel News.

FAQs on the Torah and Associated Subjects

adapted from the TNN Online website[a]

There are many potential questions to be asked, and issues to be probed, about the Torah or Law of Moses. This section of Frequently Asked Questions includes entries which are directly related to the subject matter of the Messianic Torah Helper. FAQ entries which are more-or-less related to the contents of each chapter of this publication have been listed under a heading with the chapter’s name.

FAQs related to The Importance of Studying the Torah

Why does it seem that the Torah, or Pentateuch, is the only part of the Bible that matters to many Messianics? I am not trying to discount the importance of the Torah, but there is more to the Bible than just its first five books.

Because of the Messianic movement’s undeniable faith heritage inherited from the Jewish Synagogue, and the weekly tradition of going through a parashah of the Torah, reading the Torah will always be a part of the Messianic experience. For Jewish Believers, the Torah not only composes their spiritual heritage, but also a major part of their ethnic and cultural heritage, and along with this, the customs which are intended to honor it. For non-Jewish Messianic Believers, reconnecting with the Torah as a part of their spiritual heritage, which has been widely overlooked or ignored by much of Christianity, has been significantly important.

There should not be any issue with today’s Messianic movement placing an emphasis on the Torah, as the five books of Moses’ Teaching (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) do constitute the foundation of the rest of Scripture. The challenge, for Messianic teachers, leaders, and individual Bible readers, is how to respect the position of the Torah within the Biblical canon, while also making sure that one has an adequate appreciation for the remainder of Holy Scripture.

Consider how theologian Douglas J. Moo remarks, “Far too many Christians are abysmally ignorant of even the basic content of the Old Testament. Too many pastors avoid the Old Testament or preach only a few of its more famous stories and texts. Evangelical scholars and publishers have perpetuated the problem by producing three or four solid exegetical commentaries on New Testament books for every one on an Old Testament book.”[b] In response to much of the over-focus on the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament by many of today’s Christians, Messianic people can make the reverse mistake by over-focusing on the Torah or Pentateuch. In such a schema, not only are the Messianic Writings ignored, but even much of the Tanach or Old Testament itself is widely overlooked.

How today’s Messianic Believers learn to have an appreciation, for the whole Bible, will be easier for some, than it will be for others. Two unique resources that TNN Press have produced include A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic and A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic, which are intended to be used by an individual with his or her study Bible, in order to get a good feel for the people, places, events, and composition of each Biblical book. Going through a survey of the Holy Scriptures once, in a Believer’s lifetime, is an excellent way to learn to appreciate not only the tapestry of Holy Writ—but most importantly be able to have a big picture view of how the foundation of the Torah is progressively built upon by the other Scriptural texts.

NOTES

[a] The complete FAQ section is available for access at <tnnonline.net/faq>.

[b] Douglas J. Moo, “Response to Walter C. Kaiser,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 218.

FAQs related to Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah

What do you think the biggest challenges are regarding today’s Messianic Believers and the Torah?

There are a number of well-known, ongoing challenges present in the broad Messianic movement regarding the Torah, such as the debate regarding non-Jewish Believers keeping the Torah and the One Law issue, as well as issues regarding the integration of Jewish tradition and Rabbinic materials into halachah. Yet, there are some other issues—which might be a bit more important—which scarcely receive any of our collective attention. These include:

1.  The specific degree of changes which have been inaugurated by the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah for human sin, in the post-resurrection era: What was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14)? What does it mean that a “change of law” (Hebrews 7:12) has taken place? How does a responsible Bible reader balance post-resurrection era changes directly caused by the Messiah’s work, with the Messiah’s own insistence that the Torah is not to be abolished (Matthew 5:17-19)?

2.

Properly considering the Ancient Near Eastern background of the Pentateuch: While the Torah is to be regarded as valid instruction that informs the lifestyle and character of God’s people, it cannot be ignored that it was originally given to the Ancient Israelites. There are aspects of the Torah which were given to those who operated within a different level of technology and economy than those of today. How do we respect the original intention of many time-sensitive Torah instructions, and derive principles from them for modern-day living?

Concurrent with some of this is the frightening spectre that as we steadily approach the return of the Messiah—not only will there be an increasing need for God’s faithful to be following His Instruction (Revelation 12:17; 14:12)—but there will need to be an increasing knowledge on the part of His people to be aware of the coming apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3). While there are aspects of this apostasy which will surely involve a steady erosion of Biblical ethics and morality, and people disregarding foundational instructions like the Ten Commandments—how much of this apostasy will be spearheaded by more and more people treating the Holy Scriptures as myths and fairy tales? How much of the coming apostasy will be related to reliability and historicity issues pertaining to the Biblical record, and will even be coupled with scientific criticisms against the Bible? These are issues, which while certainly dominating much of today’s evangelical Christian apologetics, are things which too many of today’s Messianic Believers avoid.

How am I to appropriately understand the division of the Torah’s commandments?

Yeshua the Messiah did teach us that there were “weightier provisions of the law,” such as “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). He affirms that the greatest of the Torah’s commandments are the admonitions to love the Lord God and to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28; cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). It is a fact that there is a prioritization among the Torah’s commandments between those that carry more weight and those that may be considered “least” (Matthew 5:19), especially as there are differing penalties for the violation of various regulations. The teaching of our Messiah does indicate that the Torah’s commandments are divided in some way. Determining what this way is, however, has been a matter of theological discussion and debate for millennia.

Greg L. Bahnsen makes the important remark, “Christians throughout the history of the church who have advocated the authority of the Old Testament law in Christian moral instruction, such as the Reformers or Puritans, have not…done so because they make Moses the locus of their authority! Rather and more realistically, they have done so only because their true Lord and Authority, Jesus Christ, directs them to honor and obey the moral commandments of Moses.”[a] In Reformed Christian theology (and to a lesser extent historic Wesleyan theology) the commandments of the Torah have been classified under the broad categories of: moral, civil, and ceremonial. It is believed that with the coming of Yeshua and His sacrifice, the civil and ceremonial laws of Ancient Israel have been abolished, but never the Torah’s commandments regulating ethics and morality which are to remain true for all people of all times. Reformed expositors interpret passages such as Ephesians 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:14 as relating to the annulment of not the Torah as a whole, but rather the ceremonial and civil law.

In the Twenty-First Century when the evangelical Church has largely cast aside any of the Torah as relevant instruction for Believers today, we as Messianics should rejoice with our Christian brethren who have always held the Torah’s ethical commands as always having relevance! We have more in agreement with them than in disagreement, as the same Biblical passages we look to for the continued validity of the Torah are the same passages they look to for the importance of the “moral law.” However, is the classification of the Torah’s commandments into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws something that is entirely accurate? No one would doubt that there are Torah commandments that appear to be moral, civil, or ceremonial—but does the Torah itself divide its commandments this way? This may be a place where the Jewish theological tradition can step in and provide us with another perspective.

Of the 613 categorized commandments in the Chumash/Pentateuch, it is held that there are 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments. The negative commandments would largely relate to various prohibitions placed upon God’s people (i.e., the Sixth Commandment which forbids murder), but positive commandments could largely relate to things that would help God’s people and others in the larger community such as allowing the poor to glean one’s field. Within the Torah, we see its mitzvot often classified among three distinct categories:

1.  edot: “warning signs, reminders, urgings” (CHALOT).[b]

2.  chuqim: “divine statute[s]” (CHALOT).[c]

3.  mishpatim: “decision by arbitration, legal decision” (CHALOT).[d]

Each one of these various divisions denotes a degree of significance for a Torah commandment. Edot would be those things that God has placed for His people to be safe and for their well-being. Chuqim are often likened to things that do not make logical sense to the human mind, but God has told His people to follow them to demonstrate proper obedience. Mishpatim would be the closest thing to what we would call case laws, things that one can turn to when trying to evaluate what would be the best decision in a situation that would be in line with God’s will and character.

While these are three broad categories of commandments, seen within the Torah itself, the Oral Torah as seen in the Mishnah and Talmud demonstrates that the Rabbis have spent considerable time into classifying the commandments (and their application/non-application) even further. The six significant divisions in the Mishnah, from the Second Century C.E., include:

1.  Agriculture

2.  Appointed times

3.  Women

4.  Order of Damages

5.  Holy things

6.  Purities[e]

From those broad headings the Torah’s commandments are often further divided into various sub-categories as titled by the Mishnah tractates, and the Talmud which is essentially commentary on the Mishnah.

The division of commandments seen in the Mishnah does appear to be much more natural from a reading of the Torah than the traditional Reformed Christian division of moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. We would suggest that considering the Torah’s commandments from the classifications offered by the Mishnah would be better for today’s Messianic movement, especially as it is a major part of our Jewish theological heritage.

Of course, determining what part (if any) the Oral Torah and its commentary would play in our emerging Messianic theology and Torah halachah is another issue altogether. Many believe it should not be considered. But we believe that it should not be removed from the conversation of our Biblical Studies as we wrestle with how to properly live out the Torah today. Yet, this conversation should also include linguistic and historical analysis, comparison of the Pentateuch with other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, and most significantly the life example of Yeshua and His Apostles. Along with such analysis will come a realization of which commandments are “greater” compared to commandments that are “least.” And as always, when tradition is considered we must not forget the instruction given by Paul in Philippians 4:8:

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

Does the Torah actually teach that by keeping its commandments, a person can earn eternal life?

Is it possible for a person to keep the commandments of the Torah, and as a result incur eternal life and everlasting communion with the Father? There are those throughout Jewish and Christian religious history, and even to our present time, who have thought that Leviticus 18:5—“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them”—implies precisely this. There are certainly Christian interpreters, who would dispute this conclusion based on a variety of contextual factors, and would consider it in stark contradiction with Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Only by carefully evaluating the original setting of Leviticus 18:5, and then some key places in the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, where it is quoted or alluded to (Luke 10:28; Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5), can a Bible reader have a good idea about what is being communicated.

Leviticus 18:5

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.”

On its own, Leviticus 18:5 says, “You shall observe My decrees and My laws, which man shall carry out and by which he shall live—I am HASHEM” (ATS). The two verbs of interest first include shamar, generally meaning to “keep, watch, preserve” (BDB),[f] “The basic idea of the root is ‘to exercise great care over’” (TWOT).[g] The second is chayah, seen in the clause ha’adam v’chai b’hem, a very wooden translation of it being: “a person/mortal and will live in/by them.” The verb v’chai is a third person, Qal vav consecutive perfect, here in Leviticus 18:5 likely having a “Consequential” usage, meaning that it “expresses logical result, describing an action or situation resulting from a previous action or situation” (A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax).[h] If people keep God’s statutes and judgments, then they will live. The theological challenge, with approaching the verb chayah, is how it can range from meanings relating to physical life, a prosperous life, to eternal life.[i]

What is intended by, “if a person does them, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5, ESV)? This is where we need to be sure to read Leviticus 18:5 in view of its wider cotext, in which some important contextual and historical indicators are mentioned. This should give readers an appropriate perspective of what is being asserted by the Lord:

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD”’” (Leviticus 18:1-5).

Following this preface in Leviticus ch. 18 is largely a series of sexual instructions, prohibiting various incestuous relationships (Leviticus 18:6-18), sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstruation cycle (Leviticus 18:19), sexual relationships between a man and another woman (Leviticus 18:20), male homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). Also seen are a prohibition on presenting one’s offspring to Molech (Leviticus 18:21), and how Israel will be cast out of the Promised Land if they perform any of these sins (Leviticus 18:24-30). The universal nature for all of those within the community to keep these instructions is emphasized (Leviticus 18:26). The essential summary is that the sexual practices observed in Egypt, and also observed in Canaan, are strictly off limits for the Ancient Israelites. Readers should notice that,

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD…For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 18:5, 29-30).

With this all in view, the wider context and issues present in Leviticus ch. 18 should not guide readers in the direction of thinking that eternal life, or everlasting communion with God, is something that can be earned by keeping the Torah’s commandments. Such a conclusion is something plainly absent from the text reviewed. It would, however, be most proper to conclude that Leviticus 18:5 says that a proper mode and quality of life, b’hem—“in them” (KJV), “by them” (NIV/ESV), or “through them” (CJB)—can be present by those who keep the Torah’s commandments. The Torah’s high sexual instructions, for example, are surely intended to generate respect for other people in the community. For the Ancient Israelites who would be faithful to observe God’s Torah, especially in regard to the immediate instructions seen in Leviticus ch. 18, they would not have been cut off or have faced capital punishment for their offenses. On the contrary, in guarding their sexual conduct, they would be contributing to a society where the value of all people was honored.

The tenor we see, from how Leviticus 18:5 is referenced elsewhere in the Tanach, would confirm that a high quality of Earthly life and conduct is in view:

“I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live…But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness. They did not walk in My statutes and they rejected My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; and My sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I resolved to pour out My wrath on them in the wilderness, to annihilate them…But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness” (Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21).

“And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, by which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen” (Nehemiah 9:29).

At the very most, what could be implied from Leviticus 18:5 is that the person, who keeps God’s commandments, would remain on a straight and narrow path (cf. Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:24), that will consummate in entering into God’s Kingdom—not that keeping commandments themselves will earn or merit one eternal life. Those who live within the right sphere of conduct on Planet Earth, by their behavior, should demonstrate themselves as those who are members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In theological studies, both Jewish and Christian, one will certainly find a divergence of views on the meaning of Leviticus 18:5. The debate on how Leviticus 18:5 is to be approached, generally falls into two categories: those who see this as a quality of daily life in holiness on the path of faith that God has established for His people, and those who see this verse as implying that eternal life can possibly be earned through human Torah observance.[j] The following chart is a summary of relatively current Jewish and Christian approaches:

LEVITICUS 18:5 IN THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE

POSSIBLY EARN ETERNAL LIFE

Verse 5 enjoins obedience to Yahweh’s ‘statutes’ and ‘judgments’ with a reference to their life-giving effect—i.e. the prevention of sudden death in the framework of ‘normal’ earthly life.[k]

Martin Noth, liberal Christian

The simple sense of the clause va-ḥai ba-hem, “he shall live by them,” is that one should live his life in accordance with God’s laws and commandments and that he should obey them all his life or while he is alive. This clause has, however, stimulated other interpretations reflecting its unusual syntax and semantic nuances. Syntax allows us to understand this clause as one of result: “that man shall perform, so that [as a result] he may acquire life by them.” Performance of God’s laws and commandments holds forth the reward of life, whereas their violation threatens man with death. This interpretation is the basis for the traditional understanding of our verse by later commentaries [Targum Onkelos, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban], which state that observance of the commandments is rewarded by life in the world to come.

Baruch A. Levine, liberal[l] Jew

As long as the chosen people kept the prescribed statutes and ordinances, they could expect to live (5). The kind of life which the law brought would be one of divine blessing and material prosperity, consonant with the covenantal promises, but contingent always upon implicit obedience to the will of God.[m]

R.K. Harrison, evangelical Christian

This verse [Leviticus 18:5] may mean no more than that the pious Israelite should “live out life” in the sphere of the law. But the use of the language of “life” elsewhere in the Pentateuch to denote the reward God gives for obedience to the law (e.g., Deut. 30:15, 19) makes it more likely that “will live” in Lev. 18:5 is a reward for obedience….Leviticus 18:5 is not…a promise that the doer of the law will attain eternal life. On the other hand, one can make a good case for thinking that Paul, like later Jewish writers (cf. the Onkelos and Pseudo-Jon. Targums) understood Leviticus 18:5 to be promising eternal life for the doer.[n]

Douglas J. Moo, evangelical Christian

Lev. 18:5 does not teach salvation by works. It teaches that the OT believers who trusted God and obeyed him from the heart received life abundant both here and hereafter….Observance of these laws in an attitude of faith resulted in spiritual life and power for the godly Israelite…Therefore it is best to take Lev 18:5 as a command to keep all God’s laws by faith and thus attain a full spiritual life.[o]

R. Laird Harris, evangelical Christian

Men and women will fare much better if they will follow God’s laws. This chapter is addressed to those who claim the Lord as their God…Only those who already have this Lord as their God are commanded to walk in God’s laws so that they might live (v. 5). Keeping the law will not lead to eternal life, as some have mistakenly thought that this verse teaches, but it will lead to an abundant life. The phrase “will live by them” means that life will be lived in accordance with God’s laws and commandments. The subsequent history of interpretation finds both Christian and Jewish commentators attempting to have this phrase reinterpreted to say, “[A person] shall perform, so that [as a result] he or she may acquire life by keeping them.” But this result, as one can see, is contrived both in its understanding of “life” and in its unusual construal of the syntax.[p]

Walter C. Kaiser, evangelical Christian

And by which he shall live. Ramban writes that the term by which he shall live refers particularly to the ‘social commandments’ between man and his fellow man, such as the laws governing property and debts, and those forbidding murder and robbery. Only if society adheres to this body of law can life be peaceful and stable.[q]

ArtScroll Chumash, Orthodox Jewish

The call of Israel was a call to abundant life. Obedience to God’s commands would result, not in poverty, death, or destruction, but in a fullness of life denied to those who lived by their own laws instead of by God’s word. God promised to look on those who obeyed the terms of his covenant with favour (26:9) and to bestow on them the blessings of peace and prosperity. Rich and fruitful lives would be theirs.[r]

Derek Tidball, evangelical Christian

Gordon J. Wenham is one whose observations on Leviticus 18:5 seem to move between Earthly and eternal views of life. He first states, “For the OT writers life means primarily physical life. But it is clear that in this and similar passages more than mere existence is being promised. What is envisaged is a happy life in which a man enjoys God’s bounty of health, children, friends, and prosperity. Keeping the law is the path to divine blessing, to a happy and fulfilled life in the present (Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 28:1-14).”[s] He goes on and adds, however, “it is Jesus and Paul who insist that the full meaning of life is eternal life. If anyone can keep the law, he will enjoy eternal life (Matt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12).”[t] Wenham further takes this to the point of saying, “In John’s Gospel man must keep the new law—the word of Christ.”[u]

There are those Christian examiners who lean toward, “So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them” (Leviticus 18:5), as relating to the obedience of Yeshua the Messiah to the Torah—and how born again Believers are to be associated with such obedience, as they are to be found in Him. A similar view would be how people keep a Torah that is intended to naturally point to the salvation of the Messiah (cf. Romans 10:4, Grk.).[v] While we do surely all benefit as redeemed souls from the perfect obedience of Yeshua to the Torah, and a Believer’s keeping of God’s commandments is to always point to the salvation of Yeshua—this is probably a bit of a stretch for interpreting Leviticus 18:5.

For today’s Messianics, who can be certainly said to have a faith practice significantly informed by Judaism, it is true that there are views expressed in ancient Jewish literature, such as the Targums, which would conclude that Leviticus 18:5 teaches that eternal life is attainable via keeping the Torah’s commandments:

“And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man do he shall live by them an everlasting life. I am the Lord” (Targum Onkelos on Leviticus 18:5).[w]

“And you shall keep My statutes, and the order of My judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them, in the life of eternity, and his portion shall be with the just: I am the Lord” (Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 18:5).[x]

A lesser, although notable view, is seen in the Talmud, where a Rabbi Meir is said that a non-Jew who keeps the Torah may be regarded as though he were a high priest:

“R. Meir says, ‘Whence do we know that even an idolator, should he take up study of the Torah, is equivalent to a high priest? For it is said, “[You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments,] which, if a man do them, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5); priests, Levites, and Israelites are not specified, but only a man. From that formulation you learn that even an idolator, should he engage in study of the Torah, is equivalent to a high priest’” (b.Sanhedrin 59a).[y]

There are ancient Jewish opinions that regarded Leviticus 18:5 as teaching that eternal life could be attained via keeping God’s commandments. This was an opinion surely present within the First Century Jewish world of Yeshua and the Apostles, but whether they actually agreed with it or endorsed it can probably be disputed (discussed further).

A more modern Jewish approach to Leviticus 18:5, which can be appreciable, is how Richard Elliot Friedman renders the clause ha’adam v’chai b’hem as, “he’ll live through them.”[z] In his estimation, “This way of picturing the laws, as a path to life, begins here. It returns as the climax of the Torah in Deuteronomy. The path to the Tree of Life is blocked at the Torah’s beginning, and the way to recover it is emphasized at the Torah’s end. The laws are not presented as a burden but as a blessing.”[aa] He goes on to chastise those “who have characterized the law as a weight that no human can possibly bear, as a curse from which one needs to be saved.”[bb] Yet, Friedman’s view is probably a bit too conditioned by a Jewish theology which sees the Torah as the means of obtaining what was lost in Eden, rather than a coming Messiah who is to save God’s people (cf. Genesis 3:15).

From the actual text of Leviticus 18:5, we see that “life” is promised to those who keep God’s commandments. Readers are definitely on good footing to conclude that Leviticus 18:5 regards a high quality of life lived on Earth, one that is intended to be blessed and prosperous from the Lord. To conclude that eternal life can somehow be merited from keeping commandments, though, has to be eisegeted into the text, even though there are interpreters in history who have incorrectly held to it.

However, for those who have acknowledged Yeshua (Jesus) as Savior—to act as though daily life has no connection to future Heavenly life—would be most inappropriate. For those who obey God’s commandments in Messiah are surely to be regarded as men and women of the age to come living in the present evil age. They are to bear in their activities of daily life, the blessings to be fully consummated in future Heavenly life. Leviticus 18:5 does not promise eternal life via someone keeping God’s commandments, but Leviticus 18:5 can provide assurance that those who keep God’s commandments will be firmly planted within the sphere of His Kingdom. God’s commandments do not provide the way of salvation from sins and eternal punishment, but they do provide the way of sanctification and holiness. As Tidball properly describes,

“Some might wish to object to God’s right to say how his people should live, but it should really come as no surprise that the God who made us knows better than we ourselves know how we should function in his world. It should not surprise us that obeying the maker’s instructions is likely to bring the best out of us and lead us to live life to the full.”[cc]

Luke 10:28

“And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.’”

Luke 10:28 is a verse that all Bible readers have probably struggled with, as on the surface Yeshua seemingly endorses a concept of salvation by Torah-keeping. The cotext of Luke 10:25-29 might point readers in the direction of eternal life being inheritable via keeping the Torah. But, can salvation really come by works? In the dialogue between a certain lawyer or Torah teacher, and the Lord, Yeshua is questioned about how he can obtain eternal life:

“And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?’ And he answered, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF’ [Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18]. And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE’ [Leviticus 18:5]” (Luke 10:15-28).[dd]

Appearing in Luke 10:25, the verb klēronomeō  in a broad sense means “to receive a share of an inheritance, to inherit a portion of property” (LS).[ee] I. Howard Marshall is correct to indicate how the verb “here has the idea of being qualified now to receive a future blessing from God.”[ff] In some other versions klēronomeō is rendered as “gain” (Common English Bible, TLV), and the Phillips New Testament offers the useful paraphrase, “Master, what must I do to be sure of eternal life?”

One of the immediate features that must be noted in Luke 10:25-28, is how the two principal commandments of loving God and loving neighbor are referenced by the lawyer, as needing to be kept. The lawyer’s intention, though, was to “trap him” (Luke 10:25, CJB) or “entrap Yeshua” (TLV). Marshall observes how “Jesus improves the occasion by calling the lawyer to be sure to practise the commandments,”[gg] as the Messiah is surely no antinomian. Anyone reading Luke 10:25-28, whether they think that the Torah has relevance and validity in the post-resurrection era or not, still thinks that those who truly believe in God are to love Him and neighbor—especially given the placement of Yeshua’s teaching of the Good Samaritan following (Luke 10:30-37). In Luke 10:26, Yeshua asks the lawyer the pertinent question, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” He puts the Torah teacher on the spot, asking him what he thinks is necessary to be followed in order for him to receive eternal life. After quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18, Yeshua confirms the lawyer’s conclusion (Luke 10:27-28a).

There are examiners of Luke 10:28b, seeing the quotation of Leviticus 18:5, who think that Yeshua is focusing the attention of the Torah teacher on his heart attitude, and the impossibility of keeping the Torah’s commandments in order to inherit eternal life. In the view of Leon Morris,

“Some see in this a formal commendation of the way of works. If you want a way of salvation by doing, this is it (with the implication that you won’t be able to do it.) It is perhaps more likely that it is a repudiation of works. It is not what we do, considered as a meritorious work, that matters, but our attitude…Jesus is not commending a new system of legalism somewhat different from the old one, but pointing to the end of all legalism. The lawyer wanted a rule or a set of rules that he could keep and so merit eternal life. Jesus is telling him that eternal life is not a matter of keeping rules at all. To live in love is to live the life of the kingdom of God.”[hh]

No one will argue against the fact that love for God and neighbor are required in order to have eternal life, because even though salvation is freely given, it is first manifested by a changed heart that loves God and others without prejudice, bigotry, pride, or pre-conditions.

How Luke 10:28 with its quotation of Leviticus 18:5 is approached—with some concluding that, at least hypothetically, observance of Torah commandments can merit eternal life—relates to how Luke 10:28 immediately leads Yeshua to teach on the Good Samaritan. Does the lawyer, who has just correctly answered by saying how eternal life involves loving God and neighbor, truly understand all of the ramifications of this? Luke 10:29 indicates, “But wishing to justify himself, he said to Yeshua, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” The Moffat New Testament is probably right to paraphrase this with, “Anxious to make an excuse for himself.” While theologically the Torah teacher’s answer was correct, there was still some significant maturation to take place within him—and this teacher, who had wanted to test Yeshua (Luke 10:25), was being convicted of his limitations right in the sight of Him!

One’s neighbor includes all members of the human race, not just those within one’s immediate sphere of comfort. As Craig A. Evans observes,

“It is…easier to profess love for God and to observe religious rituals as proof of this love than it is to show love for one’s neighbor. The legal expert must have sensed this and so, wishing to justify himself, asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ Implicit in his question is an excuse for failing to keep the second commandment…The commandment to love one’s neighbor is to be applied universally, not selectively. As the Parable of the Good Samaritan will illustrate, it is the man who treats a stranger as a neighbor that really keeps the commandments of the law.”[ii]

One perspective of inheriting eternal life (Luke 10:25) via God’s commandments is offered by R. Alan Culpepper, “Eternal life is found not just in knowing the commandments but in doing them. The answer to the lawyer’s question is implicit in the question itself: ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Those who live rightly ordered lives now—living out of their love for God, others, and self—show that they have been touched by the kingdom of God. They will have the capacity to receive the promised inheritance: life in fellowship with God and others in the age to come.”[jj] Culpepper’s viewpoint, though, is more representative of an intended life to be experienced by those who keep God’s commandments resulting from a supernatural experience with Him, not by those who can somehow earn eternal life by their human works.

The presence of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) should make us think that keeping Torah commandments themselves cannot earn a person eternal life. Yeshua’s teaching is concerned with how those who have been oriented toward loving God and loving neighbor, will bear no malice, disdain, or negativity toward all other people. The lawyer/Torah teacher had a correct theology in recognizing that love for God and neighbor was required to inherit eternal life. Correct theology, however, must be joined with a correct orthopraxy or the right actions. Living properly in honoring one’s neighbor is to be a reflection of future eternal life and communion with God, as manifested in day-to-day activities. When Yeshua quoted Leviticus 18:5, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE” (Luke 10:28), it should point readers forward in the direction of the lifestyle and attitudes required of His followers, best seen by what is delivered in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This would also concur with how Leviticus 18:5 was originally given in the Torah to provide proper guidelines for life for those within the community of Israel:

“Yeshua replied and said, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, “Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.” Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?’ And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’ Then Yeshua said to him, ‘Go and do the same’” (Luke 10:30-37).

The Samaritans were greatly despised and rejected by most of the First Century Jewish community. In Yeshua’s view, though, in order to demonstrate oneself worthy of eternal life, a Torah obedience that frequently conflicts with the established norms of one’s religious leaders and prevailing culture must be practiced. The lawyer, being told by Yeshua that his neighbors included Samaritans, could have been shown to not only be unworthy of eternal life—but concurrent with the original context of Leviticus 18:5, be unworthy of even the material blessings and prosperity offered by Moses.

When Yeshua says in Luke 10:28, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE,” it is then substantiated in the example that follows via how the Samaritan showed mercy. Many have taken “Do this…” as looking backward to the answer the lawyer gives (Luke 10:25-27). This would then imply that keeping the Torah’s commandments will result in one inheriting eternal life—as impossible as it may be—requiring all to look to Yeshua. It is better for us to conclude that Luke 10:28, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE,” touto poiei kai zēsē, looks forward to the message of the parable Yeshua delivers to the rather nervous Torah teacher. What Luke 10:36-37 says is what Yeshua really expects in terms of how His followers are to live:

“‘Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?’ And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’ Then Yeshua said to him, ‘Go and do the same [poreuou kais su poiei homoiōs].’”

Grammatically speaking, the source text of both Luke 10:28 and 37 uses the same word, the present active imperative poiei. The verb poieō here would mean something along the lines of, “to carry out an obligation of a moral or social nature, do, keep, carry out, practice, commit” (BDAG).[kk] Seeing the imperative mood poiei is important, as “The imperative mood is the mood of intention” and “The imperative is most commonly used for commands” of some kind (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).[ll] As such, Yeshua’s statement about “Do this…,” regards loving neighbor as oneself—whoever that neighbor may be—as Earthly life is regulated by God’s commandments. Luke 10:28, 37 instruct readers, “DO [poiei] THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE …Go and do [poiei] the same {in showing mercy}.”

God’s commandments on their own cannot provide a person with eternal life, but keeping God’s commandments do surely keep people within the sphere of God’s Kingdom. God’s commandments represent behavior appropriate to those who have eternal life, in their activities on Planet Earth.

Galatians 3:12

“However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.’”

All readers of Paul’s letter to the Galatians can discern how Galatians ch. 3 is absolutely “loaded,” as it were, as the Apostle wants his Galatian audience to be brought into a proper understanding regarding the place of the Torah. There is a probable contrast between what the Judaizers/Influencers have reported to the Galatians, and what Paul informs them here. The main point in the cotext of Galatians 3:11-13 is that the Torah has not been given to justify people, as faith in God is what has always justified people, now involving belief in His Messiah. Yeshua the Messiah has come to redeem all people from the curse and condemnation of the Torah pronounced upon all Law-breakers:

“Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH’ [Habakkuk 2:4]. However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM’ [Leviticus 18:5]. Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE’ [Deuteronomy 21:23]” (Galatians 3:11-13).

All readers of Galatians 3:12 can acknowledge how Paul says that the Torah is not of faith, and how he then quotes Leviticus 18:5 to state some kind of purpose that the Torah serves. Various commentators on the Epistle to the Galatians have taken this as a statement that eternal life can be gained by Torah observance—and that since this is a human impossibility—faith in the perfect Messiah, who was sacrificed for human sins, is required instead.[mm]

Many readers of Galatians 3:12a take Paul’s remark, “the Law is not of faith,” and use it as an excuse to avoid having to heed Moses’ Teaching—even sometimes to just read and study the Pentateuch as a matter of Biblical history. Does this statement actually mean that the Torah is of no relevance for Believers today who have faith in Messiah Yeshua? This statement must be counterbalanced with what the author of Hebrews communicates, as he says “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Likewise, it must also be counterbalanced with the fact that Paul himself further asserts, “we know that the Law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14).

The Torah is not something that is inspired by mere mortals; its Author is God Himself. It is not to be dispensed with on a whim. We are to listen to its instruction. The Torah as something to be followed cannot generate “faith” or “trust,”[nn] as this must come from a steadfast internal confidence that a person places between himself or herself, and the Creator God. The Torah might not be “of faith” (ek pisteōs), but it is surely an important part of “the faith” and the canon of authority that God’s people are to turn to.

The quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12b is intended to be a contrast between the Torah not being of faith, and its statutes to be followed. But, is this intended to be something that is adversative? The view of James Montgomery Boice is precisely this: “For faith excludes law, and law by its very nature excludes faith. [Paul] quotes the law itself (Lev. 18:5) to support this conclusion.”[oo] G. Walter Hansen is a bit more targeted in his commentary on Galatians 3:12, fairly noting how “The whole of the Pentateuch (law in the broad sense) is primarily concerned with faith in God,” but he then goes on to describe, “In Galatians 3:12 law must be taken in the narrow sense…In the Galatian dispute the law refers to a set of requirements…imposed on Gentile believers.”[pp]

Messianics have significantly struggled with Galatians 3:12, but not so much with the assertion that “the Law is not of faith” (Galatians 3:12a). It can be pretty easily deduced that the Torah’s instruction has been given not to provide faith, but rather provide a means of holiness and proper living. Messianics have specifically struggled over the quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12b, so much so that the Complete Jewish Bible rendering of Galatians 3:12 implies an errant view of Leviticus 18:5 being present in the Jewish world of the First Century: “Furthermore, legalism is not based on trusting and being faithful, but on [a misuse of] the text that says, ‘Anyone who does these things will attain life through them.’” While it should definitely be disputed why nomos is rendered in the CJB here as “legalism” and not “Torah” as it is elsewhere, it should even more be questioned why David H. Stern chose to add “a misuse of” in brackets []. He believes that the problem present in Galatians is legalism,[qq] which may be true to some extent—but does Stern stand on strong exegetical ground to paraphrase Galatians 3:12 the way that he has with “a misuse of”? Probably not.

Much of our perspective of Galatians 3:12 is going to come down to how we choose to view the clause, all’ ho poiēsas auta zēsetai en autois. The dative (case indicating indirect object) clause en autois or “by/in them,” with the preposition en, is either locational: “marker of a position defined as being in a location, in, among” (BDAG).[rr] Or, en could be instrumental: “marker introducing means or instrument, with” (BDAG).[ss] Those who keep the Torah live within the sphere of, or by, its instruction.

Leviticus 18:5, as already noted, is a section of the Torah where appropriate sexual conduct is commanded of the Ancient Israelites as they prepare to enter into the Promised Land. These were surely things that the non-Jewish Believers in Galatia similarly had to follow, as would be confirmed in the later Apostolic decree (Acts 15:19-21), being non-negotiable for inclusion within the ekklēsia. It would seem best for us to view the clause all’ ho poiēsas auta zēsetai en autois, with the conjunctive all’ ho… as marking “a transition to someth. new…[or] other matter for additional consideration” (BDAG),[tt] being better translated with “yet, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE IN THEM.” So, while Paul may recognize that the Torah is incapable of generating faith, if the presence of Leviticus 18:5 is not viewed as adversative—he by all means upholds the relevance of the Torah as a means of proper human conduct, most especially its sexual code. No word in Galatians, or anywhere in the Pauline corpus, can be seen speaking against the sexual ethics of the Torah!

When the conjunction alla is taken not as adversative, but rather as “forming a transition to someth. new,” such as another “matter for additional consideration” (BDAG),[uu] then the rendering “And, the Torah is not of faith; yet, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE IN THEM” (Galatians 3:12b, editor’s translation) can be better understood. God’s Torah not providing faith, and practicing the commandments of God’s Torah, are not at total odds with one another. The purpose of God’s Torah is not to provide faith, but its purpose is to provide a sanctified way of living on Planet Earth.

James D.G. Dunn fairly observes on Galatians 3:12, concurrent with this, how “The law…was the means of regulating life within the covenant, not the basis of the covenant itself….It needs to be stressed that this is essentially a positive view of the role of the law.” He further states, “the thought of the unfulfillability of the law [is not] anywhere in sight here…[I]it is highly pertinent to note that in context Lev. xviii.2-5 emphasizes the distinctiveness of Israel’s way of life from that of the surrounding nations.”[vv] Galatians 3:12 should be read as communicating that while the Torah is not of faith, it is yet intended to bring the right way of living to those who keep its commandments.

The proper role of the Torah as a matter of spiritual sanctification can actually be seen within Paul’s writing to the Galatians. Paul asks them, “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2), and “So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:5). In both verses, the Influencers’ human-derived “works of law”[ww] are contrasted with akoēs pisteōs, a genitive (case indicating possession) clause better rendered as “the hearing of faith” (KJV/NKJV). This “hearing of faith” should immediately connect us to the Shema’s imperative to hear and obey the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4-7), something which begins with love for Him and a discipleship within His covenant community.

Among Messianic interpreters, Tim Hegg has some useful thoughts on Galatians 3:12 for us to all consider:

“Apart from faith, the Torah functions only to condemn—it can never bring life (covenant membership). In fact, genuine obedience to Torah (obedience which includes right motives as well as right actions) flows from faith. Thus, the Influencers had the sequence backward: Torah does not produce faith, rather, faith produces obedience to Torah….Paul’s emphasis, therefore, in quoting Leviticus 18:5 is to show that obedience flows out of covenant membership, and not vice versa. One does not obey in order to gain covenant membership, but rather, one’s obedience is proof of covenant membership already possessed.”[xx]

The need to read Leviticus 18:5, appearing within Galatians 3:11-13, from its original context of blessing for those who live within the community of God—which one enters via faith in Him and now His Messiah—is imperative. The Torah is not intended to justify, nor is it intended to provide faith (Galatians 3:11; Habakkuk 2:4). Yeshua the Messiah was sacrificed to provide atonement for human beings’ Torah violation (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). The Torah is, however, intended to provide a means of sanctification and holy living (Galatians 3:12; Leviticus 18:5).

Romans 10:5

“For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.”

Romans 10:5 obviously needs to be read within the context of the wider issues in view, which dominate much of Romans chs. 9-11, a major part of which is the widescale Jewish rejection of Yeshua the Messiah in the First Century. There is an obvious quotation of parts of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5, even though in some English Bibles it may not be that obvious (SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS are lacking in the NASB/NASU). As can be easily seen in the bold text provided in the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (the Nestle-Aland Novum Testament Graece employs italicized Greek, which is less easier to read),

Mōusēs gar graphei tēn dikaiosunēn tēn ek [tou] nomou hoti ho poiēsas auta anthrōpos zēsetai en autois.[yy]

Some kind of observation is being made in Romans 10:5, about a righteousness originating from the Torah or the Law (ek [tou] nomou). Within Romans 10:5, the concluding clause zēsetai en autois is correctly rendered with “live in/by them,” and not “live by that righteousness” (NASU), as it obviously refers to the Torah’s commandments. Here, it is required for us to take a broader look, at least at what Romans 10:1-6 says:

“Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Messiah is the [goal] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ‘DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, “WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?” [Deuteronomy 9:4; 30:12-14] (that is, to bring Messiah down).”

The main challenge for readers interpreting the statement about a righteousness rooted in the Torah in Romans 10:5, that eludes far too many readers and exegetes, is letting Leviticus 18:5 be read within its original context of defining life for those who live within the sphere of the Torah’s instruction. Hegg directs us, “The fundamental” and common “error that has been committed in the understanding of Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 is a hermeneutical one. First, the original context of Lev 18 has been ignored, and secondly, the meaning of the word ‘live’ has been presumed from a theological context rather than a historical, linguistic one.”[zz] In his Romans commentary, he then goes on and summarizes some of the stipulations of Leviticus ch. 18, particularly in terms of how “The statutes of God are put in opposition to the pagan ways of the nations, ways which are labeled ‘abominations.’’”[aaa]

Romans 10:5 is an observation on what has been immediately stated in Romans 10:2-3. Paul states of the Jewish people of his day, “I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Romans 10:2, NIV). Paul’s further observation is, “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness” (Romans 10:3, NIV). Many of Paul’s fellow Jews had a genuine zeal for God, and they lived properly and morally, with a “righteousness that is based on Torah” (Romans 10:5, TLV) present. Many Jews of the First Century understood how Torah-keeping was to make them holy and blessed, yet because of this Torah-righteousness which is of human origin—it kept many from seeing the telos, the “goal” (CJB, Common English Bible, TLV) or “culmination” (TNIV) of the Torah, who is Yeshua the Messiah.[bbb] In Hegg’s estimation, “Paul’s quote of Lev 18:5 makes perfect sense in Rom 10 as Paul continues to explain that Israel sought the righteous Torah (9:31) but did so with the wrong method: they missed the issue of faith in the Messiah Who is the very central message of the Torah.”[ccc]

A righteousness rooted within the Torah, pursued not by faith but by human works (Romans 9:31-32; 10:3), is not good enough for redemption. For many First Century Jews, their human-originated righteousness via Torah-keeping may have been good on various levels. But, a human-originated righteousness, can prevent a person from seeing the Messiah. The testimony of Paul himself, in Philippians 3:6, was, “as to the righteousness which is in the Law[ddd], [I was] found blameless.” He would conclude, though, that “whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Messiah” (Philippians 3:7), as human achievements compared to the sacrifice and exaltation of the Lord Yeshua often just amount to “rubbish” (Philippians 3:8) or “refuse” (RSV).

A widescale problem for many First Century Jews—and certainly for many religious people since—was establishing a human righteousness rooted within God’s Torah. As Paul sadly stated, “they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were from works” (Romans 9:32, TLV). When human beings pursue their own righteousness, even if rooted within God’s Law, at best what you get are those who live generally good lives within the sphere of the Bible, and experience a high level of material blessing in following the Father’s safeguards for life on Earth. This, however, is often not a righteousness or trusting in the Lord, which is definitively required for salvation (Romans 10:6-13). A mortal, human righteousness—even if rooted within God’s Torah—can mean very little to the One who asks for us to place our complete faith and trust in Him, and what He has planned for human history and individuals’ lives.

Romans 10:4 explains how the Messiah is the telos, the goal, aim, purpose, consummation, or climax even, of the Torah of Moses—as He provides righteousness to those who believe in Him. In Romans 10:5, we see that the most that those who seek a human righteousness originating from the Torah or Law, is that they will experience a degree of blessing by living its commandments. As good as this may be, it is not enough to have eternal redemption.

The reference to Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 should be taken as a positive assessment of the Torah, and that many First Century Jews—even though unable to see Yeshua in the Torah—were indeed doing good things, as they ordered their lives according to the Torah’s commandments. The most or the best that can be hoped for in just following Moses’ Teaching, though, is a blessed and prosperous life in this world. But, it is not human righteousness that is to be rooted within the Torah—holiness or sanctification is to be what is rooted within the Torah. Righteousness is to be rooted within the work of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), who provides redemption and can bestow “abounding in riches for all who call on Him” (Romans 10:12). The Torah’s instruction is surely not nullified or abolished in the Messiah (Romans 3:31), but its condemnation upon sinners is lifted (Romans 8:1). As the redeemed in Yeshua walk by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is to provide men and women the impetus to actually fulfill God’s Law (Romans 8:4).

To review, the purpose of Leviticus 18:5 is to define how people are to live blessed and happy lives by conducting themselves in obedience to God’s Torah. The specific instructions in view in Leviticus ch. 18 are being aware of various sexual regulations that would surely set Ancient Israel apart from the Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Canaanites. These are instructions, most notably, that no part of the Holy Scriptures can ever be said to be found speaking against. The Leviticus 18 instructions, unlike something such as the rite of circumcision, were never something abused or which took on a hyper-nationalistic significance for the First Century Jewish community.[eee] These are instructions from Moses’ Teaching that were non-negotiable to be followed, as laid forth by the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:19-21).[fff]

The New Covenant, of course, promises the redeemed in Yeshua a supernatural transcription of God’s commandments onto the hearts and minds of all the redeemed (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27)—and with it the supernatural compulsion to obey Moses’ Teaching.[ggg] For those found in the Messiah, while keeping the Torah’s commandments will not merit or earn eternal life, keeping commandments will surely bring great blessings as people live holy lives and accomplish the Lord’s tasks, diligently serving Him as He says, “you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Obeying or not obeying the Lord, will of course, result in His people being granted or withheld various rewards when His Kingdom comes (cf. Matthew 5:16-19).

NOTES

[a]

Greg L. Bahnsen, “Response to Douglas Moo,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 391.

[b] CHALOT, 266.

[c] Ibid., 114.

[d] Ibid., 221.

[e] English titles are taken from the Table of Contents in Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988).

[f] BDB, 1036.

[g] John E. Hartley, “shamar,” in TWOT, 2:939.

[h] Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 88.

[i] Cf. Elmer B. Smick, “chayah,” in TWOT, 1:279-281.

[j] For a useful approach to the various views, consult R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:597-599.

[k] Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, revised edition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 134.

[l] Baruch A. Levine, JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 119; cf. J.H. Hertz, ed., Pentateuch & Haftorahs (London: Soncino, 1960), 489; A. Cohen, ed., The Soncino Chumash (Brooklyn: Soncino Press, 1983), 716.

Levine, 119 also notes that Leviticus 18:5 has been used to support the Rabbinic principle of Pikku’ach Nefesh, in that certain commandments can be violated in order to preserve human life.

[m] R.K. Harrison, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 185.

[n] Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp 325-326.

[o] Harris, in EXP, 2:598.

[p] Walter C. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 1125.

[q] Nosson Scherman, ed., ArtScroll Chumash, Stone Edition (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2000), 650.

[r] Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 219.

[s] Gordon J. Wenham, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 253.

[t] Ibid.

[u] Ibid.

John E. Hartley, Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Vol 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 293 takes Leviticus 18:5 itself to not imply that there is any kind of promise of eternal life given to those who keep the Torah, concluding, “There is little support in the Pentateuch for such a reading of this text.” Yet, he further thinks that “the language of the OT, while in itself not expressing a specific belief, nevertheless prepares the hearer for the fuller revelation of God,” in that eternal life is promised to those who believe in the Messiah.

[v] This is the basic thought expressed in Walter C. Kaiser, “Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live (Eternally?)” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 14 No. 1 (1971).

[w] BibleWorks 7.0: Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch. MS Windows XP. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2006. CD-ROM.

[x] BibleWorks 7.0: Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch.

[y] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary.

[z] Richard Elliot Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 375.

[aa] Ibid.

[bb] Ibid.

[cc] Tidball, 219.

[dd] Leviticus 18:5 is likely referred to by Yeshua in Matthew 19:17, in the wider scene of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-26). The issue in view is Yeshua’s questioning of the rich young ruler to make sure that he has kept the Ten Commandments, and upon confirming this, it is demonstrated that the man has many possessions with which he is unwilling to depart, giving them to the poor. The point made is that keeping commandments is not enough, as one must be willing to give up all to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The key statement issued is, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), as salvation only comes from God, and not deeds done by mortals (Matthew 19:16).

[ee] LS, 436.

[ff] I. Howard Marshall, New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 442.

[gg] Ibid., 444.

[hh] Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Luke, revised edition (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992), 206.

[ii] Craig A. Evans, New International Biblical Commentary: Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), pp 175-176.

In Ibid., 178 Evans takes the presence of Leviticus 18:5 to mean, “The one who obeys God’s law will have eternal life. For the Christian this is realized through Christ who fulfilled the law.”

[jj] R. Alan Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 228.

[kk] BDAG, 840.

[ll] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 485.

[mm] Cf. John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), pp 77-78, 80; F.F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp 162-163; Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, Vol. 41 (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1990), pp 120-121.

[nn] “Torah is not based on trust and faithfulness” (Galatians 3:12a, TLV).

[oo] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al, Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 11:459; cf. Longenecker, 120; Scot McKnight, NIV Application Commentary: Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 155.

[pp] G. Walter Hansen, IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Galatians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), pp 94, 95.

Hansen thinks these are “specifically circumcision, food laws and Sabbath laws.” This conclusion is likely based on his view of the Antioch dispute (Galatians 2:12), and the issue of the “days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10).

For a detailed discussion about these aspects of Paul’s letter, consult the editor’s article “The Message of Galatians,” and his commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

[qq] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), pp 546-547.

[rr] BDAG, 326.

[ss] Ibid., 328.

[tt] Ibid., 45.

This same entry also states, concerning the conjunction alla, that “when whole clauses are compared, [alla] can indicate a transition to someth. different or contrasted: the other side of a matter or issue, but, yet” (Ibid.).

[uu] Ibid.

[vv] James D.G. Dunn, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), pp 175, 17; Against: Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 235.

[ww] Consult the article “What Are ‘Works of the Law’?” by J.K. McKee for a discussion on “works of law” or ergōn nomou, and its likely connection to 4QMMT in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[xx] Tim Hegg, A Study of Galatians (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2002), 107.

[yy] Kurt Aland, et. al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1998), 546; cf. Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition (New York: American Bible Society, 1993), 427.

[zz] Tim Hegg, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Chapters 9-16 (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2007), 231.

[aaa] Ibid.

[bbb] For a further analysis of telos, consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Romans 10:4.”

[ccc] Hegg, Romans, Chapters 9-16, 322.

[ddd] Grk. en nomō; incorrectly rendered as “under the law” in RSV/NRSV/ESV.

Consult the article “What Does ‘Under the Law’ Really Mean?—A Further Study” by J.K. McKee for some exegetical analysis of this.

[eee] Consult the article “Is Circumcision for Everyone?” by J.K. McKee.

[fff] Consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[ggg] Consult the article “What is the New Covenant?” by J.K. McKee.

FAQs related to A Messianic Evolution?

Where does your ministry currently stand in regard to the Two-House teaching?

Outreach Israel and TNN Online should not at all be considered a “Two-House” ministry, given the wide and diverse array of Biblical and theological topics we address, germane to the broad Messianic community. Our ministry serves people in Messianic Judaism, as well as in the One Law/One Torah sub-movement and in the Two-House sub-movement—as we consider and analyze a wide series of issues and subjects which are thought to be of importance to people in all of those different sub-communities. If our ministry choice is to at all be honored by others in the Messianic world of ideas, we would consider ourselves an egalitarian Messianic ministry, sitting above these three different Messianic groupings. We are a ministry which regards both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Messiah Yeshua to be a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19; 3:6), and which advocates a mutual submission ideology (Ephesians 5:21; Philippians 2:3-4). We fully affirm that all Messianic Believers, Jewish and non-Jewish, male and female—are complete equals in the eyes of the Lord (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 2:11)—and should be encouraged to develop all of their gifts, talents, and skills as is proper in Him. We also believe that the Messianic movement’s shared spiritual and theological heritage in the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church, must be steadfastly honored.

As it concerns the specific issue of the Two-House teaching, Outreach Israel Ministries and TNN Online disavow the popular/populist variety of the Two-House teaching which has been promulgated since the 1990s, via a number of pseudo-denominations, sensationalistic groups, and dominant and/or presumed-prophetic personalities—which has not allowed itself to be often subject to constructive criticism and/or further theological refinement and engagement with conservative Biblical scholarship. Yet, in 2008, at least, one Messianic Jewish ministry actually allowed the following statement to be featured on its website: “The Two-House doctrine, in its most basic terms, simply maintains that the nation of Israel was divided following the reign of Solomon and will be reunited during the end times.”[a] This would be the basic or generic approach taken by our ministry to the issue of what happened to the exiled Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim, in concert with the sentiments of pre-millennial eschatology.[b] We would affirm a larger restoration of Israel, involving those from the exiled Northern Kingdom as a participant, yet to occur in Biblical prophecy.

We would acknowledge a greater, end-time restoration of Israel to come that is prophesied, going beyond the rebirth of the State of Israel in 1948, as important as this has surely been. Such a larger restoration of Israel definitely involves the Jewish people, as well as descendants from the exiled Northern Kingdom, but also many welcomed and valued scores of companions from the nations themselves. There are pockets of people in remote corners of places like Southeast Asia, Southern Asia, the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean basin, and the environs of Central Africa, who claim to be descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom via some kind of oral tradition, and/or what can appear to be Jewish-style customs—and most probably are. (Sometimes this has been enjoined with some credible DNA analysis, confirming distant Semitic descent.) These are the areas which generally fall within the sphere of influence of the old Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Empires, and where the exiles of the Northern Kingdom could have been legitimately deported, scattered, and/or assimilated (cf. Jeremiah 31:10; Hosea 8:8-9; Amos 9:8-9).[c]

We believe that the Lord will bring together, as one people in Him: the Jewish people, such aformentioned descendants of exiled Israel/Ephraim, and their many associated companions from all nations as one broad and inclusive community of people in Messiah Yeshua, before His return, in fulfillment of end-time prophecy (i.e., Isaiah 11:12-16[d]; Jeremiah 31:6-10[e]; Ezekiel 37:15-28[f]; Zechariah 10:6-10[g]). We do not at all encourage non-Jewish Believers (particularly those of Western European ancestry) who are a part of today’s Messianic movement, and who recognize themselves as a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6) or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), grafted into Israel by faith in Israel’s Messiah (Romans 11:17-18), to identify themselves as some sort of “Ephraimites.” We especially do not encourage such non-Jewish people to make any kind of permanent pilgrimage or “aliyah” to the Holy Land, as there is no indication that all Messiah followers will, in total, ever live in the Land of Israel, even in the Messiah’s Millennial Kingdom (cf. Isaiah 19:23-24; Zechariah 14:16-19).

An eschatology-based approach toward addressing this subject, with obviously various details needing to be left to an Eternal and Sovereign God, is frequently not the approach which one encounters in much of the well-known literature surrounding the subject matter. It can be said that there is a distinct difference between a populist Two-House teaching, which essentially advocates that the majority of non-Jewish Believers are distant descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom (with various connections to be likely made with Nineteenth Century British-Israelism), versus a more Biblical approach to the issue that focuses on the specific prophecies of a larger restoration of Israel. While we would affirm a wide number of Tanach prophecies involving the exiled Northern Kingdom as a participant, as being unfulfilled at the present time, our ministry would not at all be considered a part of a Two-House sub-movement which practices a great deal of theological eisegesis, where many Biblical references to “two” are applied to Judah and Ephraim, and whose Hebrew and Greek examination is often limited to Strong’s Concordance (among other things).

When this subject matter has been raised, we have definitely strived as a ministry—as best as we humanly can—to focus the attention of today’s Messianic people on a larger scope of expectations regarding the restoration of Israel, with the exiled Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim as a noticeable participant. How does this affect our view of the end-times, and what is to transpire regarding the restoration of Israel before the Messiah’s return? Unlike the populist Two-House teaching that has garnered the most attention since the late 1990s, our ministry has made it clear that non-Jewish Messianic Believers thinking that they are mostly descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom, is not at all a useful or profitable endeavor. Jeremiah 31:10 certainly directs Bible readers, “He who scattered Israel will gather him.” Many of the finer details of such a larger restoration of Israel to be anticipated are only known by our Eternal and Omnipresent Creator. And, not at all to be ignored, is the steadfast Torah word of Deuteronomy 28:62, “Then you shall be left few in number, whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, because you did not obey the LORD your God.” Much of the popular/populist Two-House literature has actually posited that the physical numbers of descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, whereas the tenor of the Pentateuch itself does not at all convey this. Not only does this seem like a significant over-exaggeration, it makes the known Jewish population seem absolutely miniscule—especially in light of the 6 million Jews who were slaughtered in the Holocaust!

Perhaps most overlooked (and dismissed) in the whole discussion (and debate), is that there will be many associated companions/associates from the nations themselves involved in the restoration process (Ezekiel 37:16-19; Isaiah 49:6; cf. Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47), most definitely being the significant majority of those who participate, in what is mainly not the reunion of the Two Houses of Israel as has been popularly communicated—but in actuality, instead, what is a larger restoration/expansion of Israel’s Kingdom. Such a restoration would involve a resolution to the issue of the exiled Northern Kingdom for sure, but would also incorporate the righteous from the nations, into an expanded realm of Israel’s Kingdom (cf. Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:15-18). Most of the non-Jewish Believers one is likely to encounter, forcibly identifying themselves as some sort of “Ephraimites,” are not, and they have no Semitic genealogy of any kind. Yet, these people have been Divinely led by the Lord into the Messianic movement, certainly in fulfillment of prophecies like Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-3, and should be considered welcome and valued members of the community of Israel. They are most certainly the equals of Jewish Believers in Messiah Yeshua (cf. Galatians 3:28).[h] They are, without question, human beings made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), who are valued and loved by Him as the Eternal Creator!

Our ministry has a consistent track record of speaking out against many of the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments, which are often witnessed in the Two-House sub-movement and much of its popular literature.[i] If there is genuinely a larger restoration of Israel to occur, which effectively involves all who acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—via the emergence of the modern Messianic movement—then today’s Messianic people must certainly show proper respect and honor to their Jewish and Christian forbearers, employing their great virtues to accomplish His mission and purpose for the final hour.[j]

What is your opinion with the various calendar issues that seem to be dividing the Messianic community?

The new month, as originally specified by the Torah, was to be determined by the changing of the moon or chodesh. Genesis 1:14 states how God originally made the lights of the sky, as the means by which His people were to keep time: “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” Numbers 29:6[k] records how there were to be a variety of special offerings presented to the Lord, during the time of the New Moon.

Since the Biblical period of ancient times up until modern times, there has been a diversity of opinion present within Judaism as to how time is to be reckoned. For practical purposes, this most often concerns the days on which the appointed times are to be observed. While residing within the Land of Israel in either the First or Second Temple periods, it would be quite easy for an enclosed group of Ancient Israelites or Ancient Jews to maintain a calendrical system via a visible sighting of the New Moon, things definitely changed in history with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and widespread expulsion from the Holy Land. How was the Jewish community, the vast majority of which was spread abroad in Diaspora, to keep the appointed times and maintain some level of cohesion and unity? George Robinson offers the following fair summation in his book Essential Judaism, of how the Hillel II calendar was developed in the Fourth Century C.E.:

“In the time of the Temple in Jerusalem (the First Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.E., the Second Temple, built in 538 B.C.E. was razed in 70 C.E.), communication over long distances was problematic. It was imperative, if all Jewish communities were to celebrate at the same time, that everyone know when the new moon occurred, since the date of a festival would be based on when the first of the month fell…Until 358 C.E., when Rabbi Hillel II introduced a permanent fixed calendar, it was up to the Sanhedrin, the governing body of rabbis in Jerusalem, to decide when the new moon fell, based on eyewitness testimony. They in turn would send a signal to a man on a neighboring hilltop who would light a signal fire; another fire would be lit on a nearby hilltop and so on, until a chain of signal fires was flickering through the known Jewish world, telling the Jews that the new month had begun.

“This was, needless to say, an inexact system. The rabbis of the Sanhedrin worried that communities outside the Holy Land would not know the exact date on which to celebrate a festival. In response to this problem, they instituted a second day for each festival in the Diaspora so that there could be no mistake. The second day is preserved in the practice of Orthodox and Conservative Jews in the Diaspora of celebrating a second day of major holidays. In Israel and the Reform movement, only one day of each festival is observed.”[l]

With a few modifications since, the Hillel II calendar—which is all pre-calculated for the beginning of the month and days for the appointed times—is followed by the worldwide Jewish community today, as well as the considerable majority of Messianic Judaism. One of the biggest areas of divergence, that is easily detectable between much of the independent Messianic community (especially the Two-House sub-movement) and Messianic Judaism, is that the former tends to reject the validity of the mainline Jewish calendar. When various independent Messianic groups gather to remember the appointed times, such as Passover, it is usually not at the same time that Messianic Jewish congregations will gather.

The issue of the calendar, in general, is often regarded as one of authority. Do the Rabbis of Judaism have any significant place in the halachah of today’s Messianic community? It is not difficult for a Messianic Jewish person, in respecting his or her heritage, to conclude that the Hillel II calendar should be followed, since it provides common dates for all Jews the world over to observe the appointed times. Believing in Messiah Yeshua does not all of a sudden make such a person un-Jewish or disconnected from the wider Jewish world, especially in matters like the calendar followed. Even if the Rabbis have been wrong in many theological areas, this does not mean that they are completely ignorant and totally devoid of wisdom.

Within much of the independent Messianic world and Two-House sub-movement, rather than the pre-calculated Hillel II calendar being followed, many instead prefer to follow the calendrical determinations by the Karaite movement. The Karaites were an ancient sect of Judaism that arose in the Middle Ages, that quantitatively rejected Rabbinical authority and the value of works like the Mishnah or Talmud. The Karaite movement in Israel, while extremely small, has its own calendar based on their visible sighting of the New Moon.

(It does have to be noted that a number of people within the broad, independent Messianic spectrum, do still follow the mainline Jewish calendar. But even in doing so, there are disagreements often present with the date for keeping Shavuot, or referring to the Feast of Trumpets as Rosh HaShanah.[m])

Within popular conference events held by various people promoting Hebraic Roots, it is not uncommon to find teachers who advocate things along the lines of, “The Father is restoring the Biblical calendar to us…” Within such teachings, one does not often find that much regard expressed for the complexities of ancient Jewish history, and the need for the Rabbinic authorities to develop a calendar that the worldwide Jewish community could use to keep them together as a people. Unfair accusations and disgust toward the Synagogue are instead more easily detected.

Too much of the independent Messianic movement has many “restored Biblical calendars” littering its ranks. While various persons have taken it upon themselves to produce their own “restored Biblical calendar,” this has tended to only cause more confusion and division, as one does not know which calendar is to be followed from congregation to assembly to fellowship. Not all agree with the determination of the Karaite movement in Israel, or when the New Moon begins and ends. The default calendar choice for any Messianic is understandably the mainline Rabbinical calendar used by Judaism today.

What really needs to be recognized about why there is so much diversity circulating, in the independent Messianic world about the Biblical calendar, is that a group’s so-called “restored Biblical calendar” is really not a means by which to determine the “real date” for remembering Passover or Yom Kippur. Many have produced their own calendars as a means to promote their own predictions and calculations regarding the end-times and Second Coming. With this, the most amount of attention focused is not upon the determination of the New Moon, but rather the year. Many assumptions are made from mathematics, astronomy, chronology, and science. It is not too infrequent that someone’s “restored Biblical calendar” gets proven wrong, and suggested dates and times have to be adjusted and recalculated when predictions come and go when nothing happens.

There is likely a season coming when some of the presuppositions, that have gone into the different “restored Biblical calendars,” will need to be radically reevaluated. Recalculating and recalculating the presumed year of Yeshua’s return (2000, 2007, 2012, 2017, etc.) cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The severe challenge to people reconsidering the various presuppositions that are associated with highly-packaged teachings like the 6,000-year doctrine,[n] is that it will open up areas of theological discussion that have largely remained closed to all sectors of the Messianic movement, particularly as it concerns the material of Genesis chs. 1-11.[o] Anthropologically speaking, we see human cave paintings, such as those in Lascaux, France from an estimated 16,000 years ago[p] (with some of the other cave paintings in France and Spain dating to as many as 32,000 years ago). One need not be an evolutionist to legitimately recognize that the popular 6,000-year doctrine has made some assumptions, about both eschatology and Biblical genealogies (i.e., Genesis 5, 11),[q] that do not bear out in human history.

Yeshua will only return when His people are ready. The Apostle Peter says we “ought…to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2 Peter 3:11-12). He employs the present active participle speudontas—“hastening”—to describe this action. The righteous behavior of Believers affects “the coming of the day of God,”[r] not any human being’s mistaken calculation of it.

TNN Online sees absolutely no reason why today’s Messianic movement should not be observing the appointed times on all of the same dates as the rest of the worldwide Jewish community. The areas where the Rabbinical authorities should be rejected concern matters like Yeshua’s Messiahship, or Jewish and non-Jewish equality in the people of God. Matters like making sure that the assembly follows the same calendar are in a quantitatively different category. Significant, unnecessary divisions have been caused by all of the “restored Biblical calendars” out there.

Do you believe that we should use the name Yahweh? Do you believe that the Messiah spoke the name Yahweh?

Objectively examining the Apostolic Scriptures, there is not a single instance of the Messiah ever verbalizing the name YHWH, either directly, or with Him quoting from the Tanach. Consider Luke 4:17-19, which includes a direct quotation from Isaiah 61:1 and 58:6:

“And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, ‘THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.’”

In the Greek source text, Isaiah 61:1 is quoted directly from the Septuagint, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible from approximately three centuries before the time of Yeshua. The LXX rendered the name YHWH with the title kurios or “Lord,” the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Adonai. In the synagogue at Capernaum, Yeshua would have read this text with Adonai.[s] While the following verses in Luke 4:28-32 indicate that most in the synagogue thought He was blaspheming, they do not indicate that He was blaspheming because He verbalized the name YHWH. On the contrary, they were dismayed because of Yeshua’s words “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). “The prohibition against the pronunciation of the name of God applies only to the Tetragrammaton, which could be pronounced by the high priest only once a year on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies...and in the Temple by the priests when they recited the Priestly Blessing” (EJ).[t] The Mishnah reflects these traditions that existed in the Judaism of Yeshua’s day:

“And the priests and people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear the Expressed Name [of the Lord] come out of the mouth of the high priest, would kneel and bow down and fall on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever’” (m.Yoma 6:2).[u]

There was a protocol for using the proper name of God, which it is clear that Yeshua adhered to during His Earthly ministry. In the Gospels Yeshua actually spends more time calling His Father, “Father,” than referring to Him as God or Lord. If Yeshua considered not speaking the name YHWH aloud to be an error of the Second Temple Judaism that His ministry existed in, then there would be plenty of evidence in the Apostolic Scriptures supporting this, including charges of blasphemy against Him for verbalizing the name YHWH. But these things do not appear. As Messianic Believers who are trying to return to the theology of the First Century Believers, who operated within the context of Second Temple Judaism, we must recognize that while our Heavenly Father has a proper name, it was not used by Yeshua or the Apostles. We must have the same kind of respect for the holiness of the name YHWH that they had.

I have encountered many, many Messianic people who claim that the English name “Jesus” is of pagan origins. Does this have any substantial basis to it? I am an intelligent person, and I do know that the Messiah did not speak English, and that “Jesus” is not what He was originally called.

The following entry has been adapted from the article “Sacred Name Concerns,” by J.K. McKee

There is some controversy across parts of the Messianic movement, surrounding the name that history and the majority of English speaking people know Him by: Jesus Christ. Most Sacred Name Only advocates argue that the name “Jesus” is pagan because it has Greek linguistic origins, and some have even referred to our Savior insultingly as “Gee-Zeus.” However, a study of Hebrew to Greek transliteration shows that there is no basis or justification for this.

About three centuries before the Messiah’s birth, the Jewish translators of the Septuagint had a similar problem. They were commissioned to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek for Ptolemy’s library at Alexandria and had extreme difficulty transliterating Hebrew proper names into Greek. Unlike Hebrew to English transliteration, which is easier because English offers most of the same sounds of Hebrew; Hebrew to Greek transliteration is not as easy because it does not share some of the same sounds. It is notable that many of our proper Biblical names in English come from Greek transliterations of Hebrew words (i.e., Moses, Phinehas, Caiphas).

Young’s Analytical Concordance is one resource that easily confirms that the Greek name Iēsous (), used for our Savior in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, is a transliteration of His original Hebrew name Yeshua ().[v] The name Yeshua is a contracted form of the name Yehoshua or Joshua, and is used numerous times in the Tanach to refer to Moses’ successor.[w] Transliteration is the process where one tries to communicate, as closely as possible, the sounds of one language into another language, often by representing words of one language in a different alphabet. This is extremely difficult when taking proper Hebrew names and communicating them in Greek. How we get from Yeshua to Iēsous (pronounced Ee-ay-sooce) to ultimately Jesus is a challenge to understand if one is armed with nothing more than a concordance, does not understand the difficulty of transliteration, and most importantly has not studied both Hebrew and Greek. When transliterating the Hebrew name to Greek:

•      (yud – “ye”) becomes  (iota-ēta – “ye” or “ee-ay)

•      (shin – “sh”) becomes  (sigma – “s” - there is no “sh” sound in Greek)

•      (vuv – “u”) becomes  (omicron-upsilon – “oo”)

•      It is necessary for a final sigma () to be placed at the end of the word to distinguish that the name is masculine and for it to be declinable from the nominative case (indicating subject)

•      Greek requires that the  (ayin – “ah”) sound be dropped

•      Hence, we get the name Iēsous (), pronounced either Ye-sooce or Ee-ay-sooce, depending on the Greek dialect

The name Iēsous, surprisingly to some, is actually of Jewish origin. This name is used for the title of the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (appearing as ),[x] the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. This serves as definitive proof that Iēsous is not of pagan origin, but rather is simply a Greek transliteration of Yeshua developed by the LXX’s Jewish translators.

In Old English, the name Iēsous was rendered Iesus (pronounced Yesus). However, it was spelled with a beginning letter “I,” which in the Middle Ages had a “Y” sound. The I was used for letters beginning with both “I” and “J.” Early editions of the King James Version, for example, simply transliterate the Greek Iēsous into English as “Iesous.” Later in the development of the English language, J’s started being used in place of I’s, and the letter received the same sound that it has today. The name Jesus is less than 400 years old. However, its existence did not come about by some sordid conspiracy as some might errantly claim.

As Messianic Believers, we prefer the richness of our Savior’s original Hebrew name of Yeshua. But because we prefer Yeshua over Jesus does not mean that we believe that those who pray in the “name of Jesus” are not praying in the authority of the same Savior that we are praying to in the “name of Yeshua.” Our Heavenly Father looks at our hearts, and we need to understand. We encourage people to use the name that was originally given to the Messiah, Yeshua, but also must realize that “history happens” and the pronunciation of names can change from language to language via transliteration.

Those who have a problem with the Greek name Iēsous need to direct their criticism to the Jewish Rabbis who translated the Septuagint. We would challenge them to provide their own transliteration of the name Yeshua into Greek, understanding the linguistic barriers that exist, and ask them to tell us what names the Messiah was designated as having in the sign above His cross which appeared “in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek” (John 19:20).

In Old English, Iēsous was rendered Iesus (pronounced Yesus). The Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version left all proper names in their Greek forms, so in the New Testament you will see names like Iesous and Noe (Noah) and Esias (Isaiah), rather than their more customary English forms. There was no capital “J” until later on. When this letter began appearing in English Bibles it adopted the “j” sound that we know today, and the English name “Jesus” was formed.

But the debate does not end there. Does the Greek name Iēsous, as some have claimed, mean “son of Zeus”? No. First of all, Iēsous and Zeus have two totally different Greek spellings. Second, Zeus in Ancient Greek is not pronounced as Zoos. Its first letter, zeta, actually has a “dz” sound. A more accurate transliteration of Dzeus is better for the layperson who has not studied Greek. Third, the diphthongs “ou” in Iēsous and “eu” in Zeus are pronounced differently. “Ou” is pronounced as “oo,” and “eu” is pronounced as “eh-uh.” Fourth, the term “son of Zeus” in classical Greek would probably appear as ho huios tou Dios and not Iēsous. Anyone who claims that the name Iēsous is even remotely connected to Zeus is exhibiting poor, sub-standard scholarship, and should be immediately dismissed.

Transliteration is not an exact science. However, it does prove that the Greek name Iēsous from whence we derive the name “Jesus” is not pagan. Those who believe that “Jesus” is another god and declare that they “reject Jesus” need to examine the facts of Hebrew to Greek transliteration. They need to realize just who they are rejecting. Those who believe that “Jesus” is someone else and proclaim that “We reject Jesus!” need to do more scholarly work.

When going out into the Ancient Mediterranean to declare the good news of the Messiah to Greeks and Romans, not only did the Apostles preach in the name of Iēsous to diverse audiences—but we encounter at least one Diaspora Jew who was given the name Iēsous by his parents. In the closing greeting of the Epistle to the Colossians, we see a man who has a very intriguing name: “Jesus who is called Justus” (Colossians 4:11). This is a prime attestation of how in ancient times, and even frequently today, Jewish people commonly had two names: one from their Jewish heritage, and one from the environment in which they were living. Paul or Paulos, otherwise known as Saul or Shaul, also had two names (Acts 13:9). What makes this so intriguing for us as Messianics is that this Jewish man, also with the name Justus (Grk. Ioustos), was actually named Iēsous. The following is what the ABD entry has to say about this man:

“Jesus Justus, a Jewish Christian who sent greetings to the Colossians along with Paul from his place of imprisonment (Col 4:11). Jesus (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua) was his Jewish name. It was common for Jews to have this name (cf. Acts 13:6) up until the 2d cent. C.E. Justus was his Latin surname, which denoted loyal observance of the law, and was probably given to him because of his reputation.”[y]

What makes Jesus Justus significant is that it points to the fact that the name Iēsous, the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua, was in fact used among Greek-speaking Jews as an acceptable male name.

The CJB renders Colossians 4:11 with “Yeshua, the one called Justus.” A commentator like F.F. Bruce recognizes how “Jesus is the Greek/Latin form of Joshua or Jeshua; Justus was a common Latin cognomen.”[z] Peter T. O’Brien also recognizes that for this man “‘Jesus’ () was his Jewish name (the Greek from of ‘Joshua’ or ‘Jeshua’) and this was common among Jews (Acts 13:6) until the second century A.D. when it disappeared as a proper name, no doubt because of the conflict between the synagogue and the Church.”[aa] Douglas J. Moo further observes, “‘Jesus’ was a popular name among the first-century Jews, fading in popularity only in the second century because of growing Jewish/Christian tensions.”[bb]

What this all points to is the fact that when people like the Apostle Paul went out into the Greek speaking world, to Greek speaking Jewish synagogues, referring to the Messiah with the name Iēsous would not at all have been something strange to them—even if they and their adherents knew it was a transliteration of Yeshua. The negative reaction that we often find in today’s Messianic movement to the English name “Jesus,” would not have been mirrored among the First Century Jewish Believers to the name Iēsous—because just as there were normal Jewish men in Judea who bore the name Yeshua, so were there normal Jewish men in the Diaspora who bore the name Iēsous. The name Iēsous may not have been the original name that the pregnant Mary was instructed to call her unborn child (Matthew 1:21), but it was by no means something concocted in later centuries by Greeks and Romans so that they could somehow continue to worship their pagan deities.[cc]

The biggest evidence, of course, against the claim that the name “Jesus” is pagan is that people have been saved, delivered from demons, and prayers have been answered through the name of Jesus Christ. It is ironic, of course, to find out that many SNO advocates will admit to being saved in the name of “Jesus.” But it is often these same people who will slander, harass, and unfairly criticize others who likewise say they were saved in the “name of Jesus,” telling many Christians that they cannot be saved. Anyone who says that the name Jesus is pagan (while it may not be the Messiah’s original name) in light of this evidence, we should believe is guilty of blasphemy (cf. Matthew 12:31).

As Messianic Believers, we prefer the richness of our Savior’s original Hebrew name Yeshua, and we do not overly encourage usage of the name Jesus. But because we prefer Yeshua over Jesus does not mean that we believe that those who pray in the “name of Jesus” are not praying in the authority of the Same One who we are praying to in the “name of Yeshua.” We must reflect a Lord and Savior who embodies ultimate love and compassion. Our Heavenly Father looks at our hearts and we need to be understanding. We should encourage people to use the name that was originally given to the Messiah, but also must realize that “history happens” and the pronunciation of names changes from language to language via transliteration.

Why does your ministry use the terms “God” and “Lord” for YHWH, when these are well documented terms used in ancient paganism?

It is notable that many people who use the Divine Name in sectors of the Messianic movement tend to forget that our Father has many titles that are used complimentary and independently of the name YHWH/YHVH. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the most notable titles that are used are Elohim and Adonai. In the Greek Scriptures, their counterparts are Theos and Kurios. These titles in English correspond to “God” and “Lord.”

Sacred Name Only advocates often have a field day in attacking people who use the titles God and Lord. It is often said that these words are of pagan origin and should have no place whatsoever in the vocabulary of a Believer. This claim is made on the basis that God and Lord have also been titles of pagan deities. This claim is made even more so for the Greek titles Kurios and Theos, which were used in Ancient Greek as titles for the deities of Mount Olympus. However, arguments against Kurios and Theos significantly lose weight when we see that the Jewish Rabbis who translated the Hebrew Tanach into Greek had no problem using them in reference to the Holy One of Israel. In fact, when the Apostles went into Greek-speaking lands, this is exactly what they called the God of Israel.

It is not uncommon at all for many in today’s Messianic movement to perceive the Hebrew language as being the “holy tongue.” This is based on a misunderstanding of Zephaniah 3:9, where the Prophet says “I will give to the peoples purified lips” or safar beruah. To assume that this means that the peoples will be given an ability to speak Hebrew is not an honest assessment of the Book of Zephaniah, as the previous verses tell us exactly what the problem of Ancient Israel has been:

“Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled, the tyrannical city! She heeded no voice, she accepted no instruction. She did not trust in the LORD, she did not draw near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions, Her judges are wolves at evening; they leave nothing for the morning. Her prophets are reckless, treacherous men; her priests have profaned the sanctuary. They have done violence to the law. The LORD is righteous within her; He will do no injustice. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He does not fail. But the unjust knows no shame. I have cut off nations; their corner towers are in ruins. I have made their streets desolate, with no one passing by; their cities are laid waste, without a man, without an inhabitant. I said, ‘Surely you will revere Me, accept instruction.’ So her dwelling will not be cut off according to all that I have appointed concerning her. But they were eager to corrupt all their deeds” (Zephaniah 3:1-7).

Being given “purified lips” is undoubtedly connected with moving from a state of sinfulness to a state of holiness—from a state of profanity to a state of purity. Zephaniah’s prophecy of “I will make the peoples pure of speech” (NJPS) is akin to the Apostle Paul’s later instruction, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29). The “purified lips” pertains to a manner of speech by which our Father’s people will be able to serve Him.

While the Hebrew language certainly has great beauty—it is still a human language (and in many cases a primitive language, with limited vocabulary, at that). And perhaps most significantly, Hebrew is an Ancient Near Eastern language with relatives such as Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic. Yet this is not understood by many teachers in today’s Messianic movement, who assume that Hebrew is a holy language and every other language is unholy. Such a misunderstanding can lead to ridiculous conclusions such as,

“The Set-apart Spirit, inspiring all Scripture, would most certainly not have transgressed the Law of Yahuweh by ‘inspiring’ the Messianic Scriptures in a language riddled with the names of Greek deities and freely using the names of these deities in the text, no way!”[dd]

Here, because common nouns in Greek are also attested to be used as names of Greek deities, the Greek Scriptures are assumed to obviously not be inspired of the Almighty. This has led to a number of people doubting the message of the gospel, and leaving faith in Yeshua the Messiah.

But what happens if we were to apply this logic equally to the Hebrew Scriptures? Terms common to Hebrew are used as the proper names of pagan gods in languages such as Ugaritic—including the terms El and Elohim—which are applied to YHWH in the Tanach. (Consult the article “The Song of Moses and God’s Mission for His People” by J.K. McKee.) If such a standard as proposed were applied to the whole of Scripture, neither the Hebrew Tanach nor Greek Messianic Writings could be considered inspired, as both languages include common vocabulary words used to refer to pagan deities. Are today’s Messianics ready to start reading the Tanach against its Ancient Near Eastern context? This has certainly been a significantly deficient area of our Biblical Studies.

If we are to reject titles such as God and Lord because they might be used to refer to pagan deities, then we must hold the Hebrew titles of Elohim and Adonai to the exact same standard. Not surprisingly, both of these titles have been used to refer to pagan deities every bit as much as the deity YHWH. TWOT explains that El, the singular form of Elohim, “is a very ancient Semitic term. It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language, except Ethiopic.”[ee] So, if we are to reject God and Lord as titles, we must do the same for Elohim because Elohim is used to refer to pagan deities, and El is used in almost every Semitic language to refer to deities other than YHWH.

But it even goes beyond this. A shortened poetic form of “Yahweh,” Yah, which appears in the Hebrew Tanach, was possibly used by pagan societies that pre-dated the Israelites. The IVPBBC tells us, “There are a number of possible occurrences of Yahweh or Yah as a deity’s name outside of Israel, though all are debatable.”[ff] Yet even if true, we certainly do not conclude that YHWH is a pagan name because the pagans may have used derivations of it. Furthermore, in 2 Samuel 5:20, David describes the God of Israel as Ba’al, which was the name of a Canaanite deity! But note that, “In the early years the title Baal seems to have been used for the Lord (Yahweh)” (NIDB).[gg] Is this an error on David’s part? We do not believe so.

There is no substantial evidence that makes “God” and “Lord” pagan titles. Otherwise, titles such as the Hebrew Elohim, and possibly even the name YHWH itself, would be pagan. Let us be a faith community that can begin to actually read the Bible in its world, and be guided by more facts.

Is there any academic validity with Hebrew letter pictures, i.e., interpreting various Hebrew words through the representations of each letter in its spelling?

The idea that the ancient Hebrew language contains pictograms, which communicate certain spiritual and theological messages, has been largely popularized by the widespread circulation of the publication Hebrew Word Pictures: How Does the Hebrew Alphabet Reveal Prophetic Truths? (Phoenix: Living Word Pictures, 1994) by Frank T. Seekins. There is hardly a Messianic congregation that has not been touched, to some degree, by Seekins’ book. Its author makes the claim, “You don’t have to read Hebrew to understand this book! When Hebrew was first written, each letter represented both a sound and a picture. Even if you don’t understand the sounds in the Hebrew language, the pictures inside of the Hebrew words will still be clear.” He further details, “What is a word picture? In Chinese and ancient Egyptian every word is formed by adding pictures together to ‘paint’ the meaning of a word. In Hebrew this is also done; a word picture is a word that is described by pictures.”[hh]

According to Seekins, Bible readers do not at all have to actually learn Biblical Hebrew in order to know the meanings of Hebrew words used in the Tanach. All people have to do instead, is: identify a Hebrew word, know what the Hebrew letters are, and then they can use his workbook to decode the true meaning of the Hebrew word via the letter pictures.

Is Seekins’ method of employing Hebrew letter pictures, in order to find the real meaning of words in the Tanach Scriptures—at all something that is credible? His proposed method of using so-called letter pictures in Ancient Hebrew is something that few in today’s Messianic movement, who encounter it, are willing to seriously challenge. The most scholastic reference tool he provides in his publication is the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament.[ii]

Where are the meanings of the different letter pictures for Ancient Hebrew to be found in firsthand sources? Who else has discovered this? Where is substantial documentation and verification about the Hebrew letter pictures to be found from actual Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern specialists? These are only a few of the critical questions that not enough people have been asking.

The Gesenius lexicon, even if a little dated from the mid-Nineteenth Century, is still a valuable tool to have in one’s library. One finds a brief introduction to the origin of each Hebrew letter, as one flips through its alphabetized entries. The Gesenius lexicon does provide a brief statement or two on the development of Hebrew letters from a Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script, to the later block script used after the Babylonian exile. Included in the opening pages of the Gesenius lexicon is “A Comparative Table of Ancient Alphabets” (Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, Arabic, Samaritan, Syriac, Phoenician, Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek), and a “Table of Alphabets” (Aramaic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, German). When familiarizing oneself with the Gesenius lexicon, no one can historically deny that the block Hebrew script employed in the post-exilic era and up until today, was preceded by a paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician-derived alphabet, which was much more pictorial. Yet, nowhere in the Gesenius lexicon is it at all endorsed, or even implied, that the “real meaning” of a Biblical Hebrew word, can be deduced by determining what its individual letters pictorially communicate. The Gesenius lexicon, just like others which have followed it, bases its definitions of Hebrew words on how terms appear in the Biblical text, and associated literature from the Biblical period.

On first glance, the claim that deriving theological and spiritual messages from Ancient Hebrew letter pictures, sounds good. After all, did not the Ancient Egyptians use a language that used pictographs as well? Those, who are completely unfamiliar, with how Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics really worked, are those who are easily swayed by the premise of Hebrew letter pictures.

Other than artistic wall scenes common to many ancient cultures, which usually depict something like a monarch in battle or being anointed by the gods, Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics did not possess the kind of spiritual or theological value as some have thought that they possess. Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphics are not actual pictures of what they represented. In the publication How to Read Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, produced by the British Museum Press, we see how on the whole, “hieroglyphic picture-signs are used to convey the sound (and meaning) of the ancient Egyptian language, just as the letters of our own alphabet convey the sounds of English.”[jj] Most of the Egyptian hieroglyphics that are studied by scholars employed symbols in nature to represent sounds common to human speech. “This is termed the rebus principle; it is as if we were to write the English word belief with a picture of a bee and a leaf as . On this basis hieroglyphics can be used to indicate sounds rather than things and can thus be used in words quite unrelated in meaning to the objects they depict.”[kk] (This is important to keep in mind, as human language develops orally before being composed in some written form.)

When one sees various kinds of birds depicted in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, each ancient bird represented a particular sound in antiquity, that the Egyptians could use to represent a sound in their written communications.[ll] The principal exception to these symbols not representing sounds are “writing words…sometimes written with meaning-signs, or determinatives, placed at the end of the word after the sound-signs.”[mm] These determinatives would have represented common things such as a “man and his occupations,” “god, king,” “sun, light, time,” “town, village,” or “day.”[nn] Such determinatives could perhaps have been the ancient equivalent of our common symbols like: @ or the at sign, # or the pound sign, * or an asterisk, or perhaps some kind of arrow sign. About as far as one can push the uniqueness, with Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, is in recognizing that while frequently read from left to right, “hieroglyphs were used in a more decorative manner than letters in our writing system; in particular, they often formed a fundamental part of the aesthetic scheme of a monument.”[oo] It is invalid to offer Ancient Egyptian as a corroborating example to justify the usage of so-called Hebrew letter pictures.

How are we to properly understand the Hebrew Scriptures and words of the Tanach? Obviously, in order to properly and legitimately understand Hebrew words, Bible readers need to have a working knowledge of the Hebrew language. They must know Hebrew from a linguistic standpoint, insomuch that they know how to read Hebrew, form simple sentences in Hebrew, know what Hebrew nouns, verbs, and adjectives are, and know what the linguistic meanings of these words are as used in passages of Scripture. Readers must be able to identify what the tense of a verb is in a sentence, and its relationship to other terms or clauses. Readers need to be able to look at a Hebrew term or clause in passages of Scripture, and see how it may be used in other passages of Scripture, to determine its best meaning and application. At times, it may be useful to consult ancient Bible translations like the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, or the Latin Vulgate, to see how various Hebrew words (particularly those which are imprecise) were rendered into other languages, to gain a fuller theological perspective. And perhaps most importantly, as it relates to this subject matter, there are at Bible readers’ disposal an entire array of scholarly Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons, produced at universities and by scholars whose mastery of the Hebrew language and related subjects, has enabled them to produce the needed theological resources that today’s Bible students need for proper examination and interpretation of the Tanach or Old Testament. (Various Bible software programs like BibleWorks or Accordance, particularly with their parsing tools, can also streamline things significantly for those who need a little help.)

Those who employ so-called Hebrew letter pictures, seem to forget how language actually works. They are often content with a relatively sub-standard resource like Strong’s Concordance, they will look up a Hebrew word in Strong’s Concordance, and then finding out how it is spelled in Hebrew, they will proceed to determine its theological meaning on the basis of Hebrew letter pictures—often using a publication like Frank T. Seekins’ Hebrew Word Pictures to guide them. It seems that more complete Hebrew language tools used by Bible students today, which includes things like the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon or the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament—widely available and relatively inexpensive—based on Hebrew lexicography and how the Hebrew language is used in Biblical and related texts, are cast aside in favor of this “new interpretation.” Why are such standard Hebrew language tools often dismissed by those who favor so-called Hebrew letter pictures? Because to use an actual Hebrew lexicon is something that is a bit too hard. One may have to actually learn Hebrew and read it, in the same way as other people have learned it for centuries. Those who have championed Hebrew letter pictures have marketed their technique on the premise that anyone can understand the “true meaning” of a Hebrew word, without having to put in the same time and effort as other students of the Bible had to do in gaining Hebrew language skills.

But where does the hermeneutic of interpreting the “real meaning” of Hebrew words via pictograms really come from? If we cast aside the premise of interpreting the Hebrew language (or any language for that matter) from the basis of how its words are used linguistically in Biblical documents and associated literature, then where are we to get the meanings of the Hebrew letters? Do the meanings come from the Scriptures themselves, legitimate Biblical-period history, or do they come from outside sources?

Disturbingly, many of today’s Messianics who have thought that Hebrew letter pictures might have some kind of validity, have not really wondered where such a methodology comes from. (It cannot be found in how Ancient Egyptian worked.) If they did a little more investigation, they might be shocked to see that a considerable bulk of the source material that is employed, by those championing Hebrew letter pictures, is from the Jewish mystical tradition and the Kabbalah.

Linguists in Biblical Hebrew and related Ancient Near Eastern languages, recognize how for some letters, visible signs were to represent spoken sounds. They do not, however, think that such signs necessarily contain esoteric and hidden spiritual or theological meanings to them. The major sources of information detailing the significance of Hebrew letters, as having any kind of esoteric value to them, originate in the Middle Ages. Consider some of the following excerpts from Jewish Kabbalistic sources (taken from The Kabbalistic Tradition edited by Alan Unterman), where the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are thought to have meaning:

ALPHABET AND THE POTENCY OF LANGUAGE

Anthropomorphism and Letters

‘Etz Chaim’ shaar I, anaf 4 [1975]

The Spiritual world is of a totally different nature from human experience. For the mystics language itself and even the Hebrew letters are a symbolic reflection of that spiritual world of light.

It is well known that in the spiritual world there are no bodies nor any bodily powers, heaven forbid. All the images and forms which are talked about there do not mean that things are actually like that. Their purpose is to make the language intelligible, so that people can understand these supernal spiritual matters which cannot be grasped and absorbed by the human intellect. Therefore, permission is given to talk about forms and images as one finds done throughout the Zohar.

….

There is…[a] way to make supernal things accessible and to give them pictorial form and that is to use the written form of the Hebrew letters as symbols.

For every single letter symbolizes an individual supernal light. That these are merely symbolic forms is obvious because above there are no letters and there is no spatial point. All of this is by way of allegory and images to make things intelligible. . . .

Whether the pictures are used in the form of human language or in the form of the letters of the alphabet, in both cases they are necessary for people to understand the subject of the supernal lights. Indeed one may see that the books of the Zohar are built on these two types of symbolic pictorial forms.

Male and Female Letters of the Alphabet

‘Zohar’ 1:159a, Vayetze [Thirteenth Century C.E.]

The divine and human words are made up of structures reflecting male and female aspects that when united provide a harmonious balance.

Rabbi Simeon [bar Yochai] said all the letters of the alphabet are either male or female and they come together to form a unity. This is the secret of the upper waters and the lower waters, which are really one, and form a perfect union. Because of this someone who knows them and is careful about them has a meritorious portion in this world and in the World to Come [Olam Ha-ba]. They are the underlying principle of the perfect unity. . .The letters are spread out on all sides to bind everything into a unity. For there are letters in which the secret of femininity resides and letters in which the secret of masculinity resides, and they bind everything together and they become one. This is the secret of the complete divine name.

Alphabet and the Soul

‘Chesed Le-avraham’ 4:6 [1863]

Language is at the heart of creation and retains its power in the human world.

Know that there is no body, vital soul [nefesh], spirit [ruach] or higher soul [neshamah] that has not been created through the twenty-two letters of the Torah. Each of them possesses the twenty-two letters of the Torah which are on the human face, and the skin covers them. . . The righteous [tzaddikim], however, are able through the power of their souls to make them shine out from within the skin of people’s faces, and to transfer these letters through their skin so they are revealed to the eyes of those that merit seeing the inner letters. This is how earlier generations were able to see a person’s sins written on their forehead, and also how the righteous now can see these letters.[pp]

One of the primary sources about the significance of Hebrew letters, which one is likely to find employed by some Messianics today, is The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk, published by ArtScroll.[qq] This publication, in no uncertain terms, associates the significance of every Hebrew letter with the Kabbalah:

“The twenty-two sacred letters are profound, primal spiritual forces. They are, in effect, the raw material of Creation. When God combined them into words, phrases, commands, they brought about Creation, translating His will into reality, as it were. There is a Divine science in the Hebrew alphabet. Sefer Yetzirah [‘The Book of Creation’], the early Kabbalistic work ascribed to the Patriarch Abraham, describes how the sacred letters were used as the agency of creation. The letters can be ordered in countless combinations, by changing their order within words and interchanging letters in line with the rules of various Kabbalistic letter-systems.”[rr]

To be fair, discussions over the significance, of the form of some Hebrew letters, can be seen in the Talmud (b.Shabbat 104a). There are speculations over what appear to be odd and irregular forms of Hebrew letters, appearing in various Tanach passages here and there, which would have been inserted into the text by scribes. Such forms were thought to have some possible theological significance.[ss] One can see how these handful of forms in the Tanach, inserted by the scribes and discussed by some of the Talmudic Sages, could then be embellished and expanded upon by the Kabbalists of the Medieval period.

Elsewhere in the Talmud, we see the statement made that Bezalel, who was commissioned to construct the Tabernacle, actually used a combination of Hebrew letters to perform his work. This remark, though, actually appears among several Rabbinic opinions about why Bezalel was wise:

Said R. Samuel bar Nahmani said R. Jonathan, “Bezalel was so named because of his wisdom. When the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Moses, ‘Go to Bezalel and say to him, “Make me a tabernacle, an ark, and utensils,”’ Moses went and got things confused and said to him, ‘Make an ark, utensils, and a tabernacle.’ “He said to him, ‘Moses, our master, the custom of the world is that a person builds a house and afterward he brings in the utensils. But you say, “Make me an ark and utensils and then a tabernacle.” As to the utensils that I am going to make, where shall I bring them? Is it possible, then, that the Holy One, blessed be he, told you to make a tabernacle, and ark, and then utensils!’ He said to him, ‘Is it possible that you have been in the shadow of God (besel el), that you should know all this?’”

Said R. Judah said Rab, “Bezalel knew how to join together the letters by which the heaven and the earth were made. “Here it is written, ‘And he has filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom and in understanding and in knowledge’ (Eze. 35:31), and elsewhere it is written, ‘The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, by understanding he established the heavens’ (Pro. 3:19), and it is written, ‘By his knowledge the depths were broken up’ (Pro. 3:20).”

Said R. Yohanan, “The Holy One, blessed be he, gives wisdom only to someone who has wisdom. For it is said, ‘It is said, ‘He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who know understanding’ (Dan. 2:21).”

R. Tahalipa, who comes from the West, heard this and stated it before R. Abbahu. He said to him, “You derive the proof-text from that passage, and we derive the proof-text from the following verse of Scripture, ‘In the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom’ (Exo. 31: 6)” (b.Berachot 55a).[tt]

The view of R. Judah in b.Berachot 55a is something that readers are free to disagree with, as R. Samuel bar Nahmani and R. Yohanan, both chose to focus on the wisdom of Bezalel who made the Tabernacle, with wisdom being given to Bezalel by God because he had wisdom. The statement by R. Judah on Hebrew letters being joined together, while reflective of a view that would have significance for later Jewish mysticism, seems to be given in passing.

We should not be surprised to see that the Talmud does include some remarks about mystical, esoteric, or at least some kind of mysterious significance, applied by some of the Sages, to the Hebrew alphabet. The Talmud represents a large collection of opinions and debates from the Jewish world after the destruction of the Second Temple. There are Rabbis who disagree with each other, and their points of contention certainly served to allow for there to be various sects of Orthodox Judaism, and today multiple denominations of Judaism. That there would have been some Rabbinic views in the Talmud, that would bear significance for later Jewish mysticism, is an indication that the literature of the Talmud is a bit broad and diverse. There will be opinions encountered that Messianic Believers are certainly free to disagree with.

(The idea that the universe was created via the employment of Hebrew letters by God, is something that we should all disregard as entirely implausible. Those Messianics today, who might be tempted to use Kabbalistic literature associated with the Hebrew alphabet—as some kind of defense against an evolutionary model for human origins—are all going to be regarded as mentally unstable. The creation of the universe by God, goes well beyond the Hebrew alphabet, Greek alphabet, Roman alphabet—or any human known form of physics, mathematics, biology, or chemistry.)[uu]

The method of using so-called Hebrew letter pictures, to determine the “true meaning” of Biblical Hebrew words, may be considered a form of mysticism-lite. While using so-called Hebrew letter pictures is not something directly witnessed in the Jewish mystical tradition, the idea that each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has significant spiritual and theological significance, is something that was developed into an art form in the Kabbalah. So-called Hebrew letter pictures, as seen in publications like Seekins’ Hebrew Word Pictures, may be considered a grandchild of what Jewish mysticism has done to the Hebrew alphabet. Those who use so-called Hebrew letter pictures cannot get away from Kabbalistic reference sources.[vv]

The Lord has been gracious to raise up Hebrew linguistic and lexicographic scholars of the past few centuries, to give us the right tools to interpret the Hebrew language properly—through examination of words in the Biblical texts themselves! Those who employ interpretations of Hebrew words, via so-called letter pictures, have embraced a methodology that has questionable origins, and will ultimately not stand in view of legitimate linguistic scholarship. No reputable Jewish scholar outside the extreme Right fringe of Judaism uses such a method to evaluate a word of Biblical Hebrew. No reputable scholar in Biblical Studies uses so-called letter pictures, as a means to interpret what a passage of the Hebrew Tanach says.

Advocates of so-called Hebrew letter pictures would really do well to engage a bit with fields such as Egyptology, and Hebrew’s cognate languages in the Ancient Near East. When these disciplines are consulted, it is clear that any so-called Hebrew letter pictures have little scholastic support.

It is difficult, though, given the widespread, populist influence of so-called Hebrew letter pictures, for many to be willing to speak out against it. There is no doubting the fact that this methodology of trying to interpret Biblical Hebrew words, via the so-called values of what a letter picture means—has its roots within Jewish mysticism. Because of how popular so-called Hebrew letter pictures have become, few Messianic ministries, which know that it has significantly dubious origins, are willing to explain why.

We recommend that if you really want to learn Hebrew, or any language for that matter, that you study it in a classroom setting, employing linguistic tools, lexicons, dictionaries, and even flash cards that have been produced for you to have a basic reading comprehension. If you can commit yourself to the discipline of doing this, then you will be able to engage with Jewish and Christian Bible scholarship on the Tanach/Old Testament—and be the wiser for it!

For around $25 or so, you can pick up good used copies of Menahem Mansoor, Biblical Hebrew Step-by-Step, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), and William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988). These two resources are an excellent place for you to start, if you really want to have some basic Hebrew comprehension in reading the Tanach Scriptures.

What is your opinion of the Jewish Kabbalah?

Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, references to Jewish mysticism, Kabbalah, and associated writings like the Zohar or Sefer Yetzirah, largely remained contained to the fringe of the broad Messianic community.[ww] This is notably not literature that mainstream Biblical scholars, Jewish or Christian, employ in their research, as representing views and ideas from the Biblical period, or in the four to five centuries following. In the late 2000s and into the 2010s, though, ideas stemming from either Medieval Jewish mysticism or traditional Kabbalistic literature and later offshoots, are becoming more and more “mainstream,” as it were. Whereas earlier, it would not be too common for various Messianic Jewish teachers to refer to Jewish mystical literature from the Middle Ages, as somehow paralleling the words and teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles, it is now becoming more and more commonplace. Aside from the obvious historical problem of acting like theological or spiritual views from a millennium or more after the period of Yeshua and the Apostles were very close to those of Second Temple Judaism—which would be anachronistic—the roots of such spiritual views have not often been approached with a great deal of discernment or trepidation. When one encounters the Jewish Kabbalah, he or she is going into a very dangerous area, which many persons in Judaism itself feel is either irrational, or just flat off limits.

Ideas and concepts originating from Jewish mysticism, of the Middle Ages, are beginning to spread in some distinct parts of the Messianic world via various teachers and leaders, who are tickling many unsuspecting ears. Jewish mysticism had existed in various “primitive” forms, as there were fringe elements of influence present in Second Temple Judaism, perhaps associated with the ideas of proto- or incipient-Gnosticism (as would have been particularly confronted in Paul’s letter to the Colossians). But while Gnosticism became relatively dormant by the Fourth Century, Jewish mysticism continued to develop and actually became a formalized area of Judaism by the Twelfth Century. The Jewish Study Bible notes that “Kabbalah taught that God was inaccessible through direct experience, and could only be apprehended through emanations of the Godhead; Torah in kabbalistic teaching had a hidden meaning, and meditation on texts was a method of ascent to a mystical vision.”[xx] One of the primary thrusts of Jewish mysticism was to view the Hebrew Scriptures as esoteric and try to find a hidden meaning behind almost everything. Consequently, many superstitions morphed into what became Kabbalah. “‘Kabbalah’ is the traditional and most commonly used term for the esoteric teachings of Judaism and for Jewish mysticism, especially the forms which it assumed in the Middle Ages from the 12th century onward” (EJ).[yy] Everyman’s Talmud, a condensed collection of writings from the Jewish Rabbis over the centuries, summarizes,

“The Talmud reveals very clearly a conflict between the pure, rational doctrines of the Bible and the debased beliefs and superstitions which pervaded the world in which the Jews lived. The Scriptures vehemently denounced every kind of magical practice and all attempts to pierce the veil which conceals the future from human men by means of divination. We see several Rabbis, particularly in the early period, waging a brave fight to stem the tide of sorcery which threatened their community, but in vain. In the later period even Rabbis succumbed, and credulity prevailed over faith.”[zz]

At first, the study and practice of Kabbalah in Judaism was not popular. It arose during a time in the Middle Ages when superstition and myth saturated much of Europe. While the formalization of Jewish mysticism for the most part began in Muslim Spain where Jews were not as influenced by Christian European superstitions, Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike were nevertheless infected by superstitious beliefs, and mysticism was by no means limited to just Judaism. During this same period, Muslim mysticism, Sufism, also arose, and superstitious beliefs regarding Biblical saints or Biblical characters were affluent throughout Catholicism. As EJ notes, “there are elements common to Kabbalah and both Greek and Christian mysticism, and even historical links between them.”[aaa] While those often practicing some form of mysticism were trying to seek a deeper and more profound experience with God, the way that many went about doing so was largely not only condemned, but explicitly prohibited by Scripture.

During the Twelfth Century, the primary texts and mythos surrounding Kabbalah were formulated. Many of these texts attest to this form of “communicating with God” going all the way back to Abraham, or perhaps even much farther to prior to the Noahdic Flood. True communion with God is described as something that is simply unattainable by people, and so humans must use esoteric and mystical methods to commune with Him. These include radical re-interpretations of the Scriptures, taking entire portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, perhaps putting pages of the Bible through some kind of numerical chart to determine one’s future, and even using séance-type techniques to communicate with the Higher Power. Certainly, while the study of Jewish mysticism is very complex, when one with a discerning eye looks at some of its practices, immediately the Holy Spirit inside the person should be convicting him or her that this is wrong. Consider this rather forthright description of Kabbalah from EJ regarding its origins:

“From the beginning of its development, the Kabbalah embraced an esotericism closely akin to the spirit of Gnosticism, one which was not restricted to instruction in the mystical path but also included ideas on cosmology, angelology, and magic. Only later, and as a result of the contact with medieval Jewish philosophy, the Kabbalah became a Jewish ‘mystical theology,’ more or less systematically elaborated. This process brought about a separation of the mystical, speculative elements from the occult and especially the magical elements, a divergence that at times was quite distinct but was never total.…There is no doubt that some kabbalistic circles (including those in Jerusalem up to modern times) preserved both elements in their secret doctrine, which could be acquired by means of revelation or by way of initiation rites.”[bbb]

This Jewish source sums up what Kabbalah is all about quite well. It says it comes out of an esoteric strain of thought “akin to the spirit of Gnosticism,” which “included ideas on cosmology, angelology, and magic.” It says that there are many elements in Kabbalah that come straight from the occult. Does Kabbalah sound like something that would be supported by Scripture, or condemned by Scripture? Would one practicing Kabbalah be subject to the penalty of practicing divination and witchcraft? Certainly, according to Leviticus 20:27 if a person becomes a medium or spiritist, he or she would be subject to the Torah’s capital punishment.

Interestingly enough, within its entry for “Sorcery,” EJ tells us that “While there is no information about the measure of law enforcement in this field in talmudic and pre-talmudic times, it seems certain that this branch of the law fell into disuse in the Middle Ages. Superstitions of all kinds not only flourished and were tolerated, but found their way even into the positive law (see YD 179, passim, for at least eight instances). What became known as ‘practical Kabbalah’ is, legally speaking, sorcery at its worst.”[ccc] This same entry goes on and says, “The penal provisions relating to sorcery are a living illustration of the unenforceability of criminal law (whether divine or human) which is out of tune with the practices and concepts of the people. In modern Israel law, witchcraft and related practices are instances of unlawful false pretenses for obtaining money or credit (Penal Law Amendment (Deceit, Blackmail, and Extortion), Law, 5723–1963).”[ddd] While attesting to the fact that proper punishment upon those practicing Kabbalah was not readily enforced in Judaism, it is nevertheless illegal in modern Israel to use witchcraft as a means for advancing oneself.

Unfortunately, as today’s Messianic movement continues to develop and work through an entire host of issues—some will accept the teachings of the Jewish Synagogue without question and without discernment, not understanding some of the complexities and diversity of Jewish history (or for that same matter Christian history), and they will have little understanding that Judaism has its own internal divisions and theological errors just as Christianity does. Many who accept the study and practice of Jewish mysticism and/or the Kabbalah as being valid for their “Biblical faith,” have not recognized its highly esoteric, and even occultic origins in places, which are readily documented by Jewish sources.[eee] In fact, few realize that when the Chassidic movement arose in Eastern Europe in the Seventeenth Century, that it was opposed as heretical by many of the Jews in Eastern Europe. One of the reasons that it was opposed by the mainline Orthodox Jews in Eastern Europe was because some of the early Chassidic leaders practiced magic:

“Some 19th-century scholars described modern Hasidism, founded by Israel Ba'al Shem Tov, as a prime example of magic and superstition…[M]any leaders of the hasidic movement believed in magic and practiced it, especially in giving amulets (the Ba'al Shem Tov himself dealt in magic and probably made his living as a popular healer and magician)...” (EJ).[fff]

However, in total fairness, this same entry does note that “the vast homiletic literature which describes its ideology, is devoid of all magic elements.” It goes on to say that “The difference between the ‘practical tradition’ of Hasidism, which practiced magic, and the ‘ideological (theoretical) tradition’ of the movement is probably more pronounced in modern Hasidism than in any other mystic movement” (EJ).[ggg] Nevertheless, these sorts of attestations as to what the Chassidic movement and Chabad have included from their beginning, should make many of today’s Messianic people be suspect of considering much of their theology, and whether or not it should really have a major place within the future development of our faith community.

The presence of Jewish mysticism, and specifically Kabbalah, has not gone unnoticed by various figures within contemporary Messianic Judaism. A brief article appearing in the May 2011 edition of the Levitt Letter, published by Zola Levitt Ministries, appeared largely denouncing Kabbalah as a danger to be avoided by contemporary Believers:

Todd Baker, “Kabbalah and the God of the Bible” Levitt Letter May 2011.

To amplify on a question posed to Dr. Seif (see p. 23), the Kabbalah poses many dangers to the Bible-believing Christian—chiefly how it views who God is. While its writings can inform us about how Jewish medieval thinking developed, its view of God is unbiblical. Today in Israel, the Kabbalah still has a pervasive and strong influence.

The Kabbalah, alternatively spelled Qabalah, or Cabalah, developed between the 6th and 13th centuries among the Jews in Babylonia, Italy, Provence, and Spain. The Kabbalah is a set of mystical/occult writings purporting to reveal and convey hidden wisdom and knowledge about God that only a few select people can secretly attain.

The word Kabbalah means “to receive” and refers to revelation from God received by Jews and passed to succeeding generations through oral tradition.

The Kabbalah views God as a series of ten descending emanations. God created the material world through these emanations with each one farther away and weaker than God Himself. So the Kabbalah contradicts the Bible when it says that God directly brought Creation into existence by His spoken word (see Genesis 1; Psalm 148:5,6). Furthermore, the Bible reveals God as an externally self-existent Person who exists apart from Creation and is not dependent upon it for His existence (Acts 17:24-26).

The Kabbalah writings also view God through the lens of Pantheism. Pantheism views God as the universe and the universe as God. But again, the Bible repeatedly maintains an essential distinction between the Creator and the creation He brought into existence. The Bible teaches that God is infinite; His being is so immense that creation itself cannot ever contain Him. As it is written: “Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27).

The Kabbalah does hold to the Bible being the inspired Word of God. But it claims that the meaning of Scripture must be found through decoding the numeric value of the Hebrew letters in order to find the true, hidden meaning of a passage. God, however, has made it clear that He desires all people to understand His Word in a clear and simple fashion (John 1:1-2,14; 5:39). The Kabbalah violates the first rule of Biblical interpretation: When the plain meaning makes sense, seek no other sense, otherwise you end up with nonsense!

Finally, the Kabbalah denies the Messiahship of Jesus and His incarnation as God in the flesh. It also believes the knowledge of the secret and hidden is the way to God. But again, the Scriptures teach that the only way to God is through His Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16) and that eternal life comes by knowing Him through a relationship of trust and faith (John 17:3). For these reasons the Kabbalah should be strongly rejected on biblical grounds.

A somewhat centrist position regarding presumed pros and cons, of both the Jewish Kabbalah and the Chassidic movement, are summarized by Juster in his 1987 version of Jewish Roots:

The Kabbalah is an ancient Jewish mystical tradition. This tradition is primarily based in the Zohar, a late Middle-Age compilation of mystical ideas of God and creation, numerology, concepts of redemption and magic. From the Messianic Jewish perspective, the Kabbalistic tradition is truly a mixed-bag. At times, one can find within Kabbalism the most profound and Biblically-valid thoughts on everything from the Messiah’s suffering for sin to even a Triune concept of the unity of God. However, Kabbalism also contains concepts from magic and paganism.

Gershom Shalom [sic.; actually Scholem], in his monumental book, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, shows that Kabbalism has roots in second and third century gnosticism. Gnosticism was a religious approach from paganism that influenced heterodox Christianity and Judaism. Gnosticism was a system that taught salvation by the way of a secret knowledge of spiritual and magical realities which was only to be conveyed to initiates. This secret knowledge assured passage after death unto salvation as well as a means to tap into spiritual powers whereby current events and situations could be manipulated. When the Kabbalah partakes of these magical and gnostic viewpoints, the Messianic Jew judges it to be dangerously occult and to be avoided. Yet not everything in Kabbalism is of this nature. No one but the most spiritually mature should seek to discern the difference between the strands of tradition.

The Chasidic Movement flourished in the eighteenth century and continues to this day. It traces its origins to the Baal Shem Tov, the Lord of the Good Name. Today’s Chasidim are strictly Orthodox Jews; but in the beginning, the Chasidic Movement was considered to be heterodox. Martin Buber has sought to give us an appreciation for this movement.

Chasidism was a renewal movement within Judaism which brought exuberance, the Chasidic leaders, although greatly interested in Torah and Talmud (traditional Jewish areas of study and practice), also were greatly influenced by and involved in Kabbalism. The Mitnagdeem, the Orthodox establishment of the day, condemned Chasidism. Usually a picture is painted of the Mitnagdeem as dry scholars with no spiritual life who rejected the Chasidim, who were themselves full of love, fervor and energy. It was not so simple. The Mitnagdeem not only recoiled at the untraditional actions in Chasidic life and worship, but at what they considered involvement in magic and heretical concepts!

In the Chasidic literature, we find many stories of rabbis who lost their minds in Kabbalism. There were many who dabbled in magic. However, there were other leaders who eschewed the magical aspects of Chasidism. Stories in the literature note the extreme dangers for even the most spiritual who became involved in magical means to produce certain ends or to bring the Kingdom of God. Some almost lost their lives. The dangers of Kabbalism are certainly at least reflected in the stories; yet, via the Zohar, the dangers exist even to the present day.

The Chasidic stories also recount teaching and examples that are closer to New Testament teachings and attitudes. The incredible example of Zusia, who allows himself to be abused for the sake of others, but thoroughly loves his enemies, is a primary example. The love of God and of neighbor, mercy and justice, are reflected in profound yet simple stories of great beauty. These aspects of Chasidism make it a great attraction to the rootless young today.[hhh]

Juster is someone who would probably not be too favorable for any of today’s Messianic Jewish congregational leaders to really associate themselves with the Jewish mystical tradition. Yet, some of his colleagues in Messianic Jewish leadership show a much more favorable approach to it. Messianic Jewish theologian Mark Kinzer is one, who while legitimately expressing how “Kabbalah remains repugnant to many evangelical Christians and rationalist Jews...[because] Jewish mysticism has often been associated with magic and superstition,” is still tempted to conclude that “Jewish mysticism has much to teach us.”[iii] We should expect groups like the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute to promote some degree, albeit limited, of Kabbalistic observance in the lives of future Messianic Jewish leaders.[jjj]

Concurrent with a growing acceptance for the Jewish mystical tradition and the Kabbalah in various Messianic Jewish quarters, it is being interjected that Biblical literature like the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Revelation, and the Gospel of John may be regarded as “mystical.” There is no question that a simple survey of Biblical texts like these reveals that they are spiritually deep, complex, and that there are mysteries in them. Whether Ezekiel, Revelation, or John can be declared to be “mystical,” though, can and should be contested. The term “mystical” does not appear anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, whereas the term “mystery” does—particularly as God’s unfolding plan for the ages steadily presents itself to mortals in history.

We have to be extremely cautious of teachings circulating in our midst, and if someone is bringing Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah into our assemblies, he or she needs to be approached and silenced. The origins of Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah are not Biblical, and they lie with the occult and practices which are mainly classified in the Bible as being divination (Exodus 22:18; cf. Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). While some of these mystical teachings might sound good, and might even sound intriguing, their origin is not the Holy Scriptures. Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah, even historically, come from a much later time than the broad Biblical period. There is too much that the Biblical period has to offer us, and a legitimate window of extra-Biblical literature, that will be overlooked and ignored if the Messianic movement has a wide tolerance for Jewish mysticism.

We as Believers are always called to test the fruit of something, to see if that fruit be good and wholesome, and that the fruit is leading into a greater and better relationship with the Lord. We also have to be very careful with the company that we keep. The Apostle Paul writes, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). It cannot go overlooked how the study of Kabbalah has actually become quite popular among some Hollywood celebrities. The most notable celebrity who has embraced Kabbalah has been Madonna. An article entitled “Madonna adopts kabbalah and a new wave of controversy,” appearing in the 26 July, 2004 edition of the Houston Chronicle, reports,

“On a recent news-magazine show, she discussed her interest in kabbalah and how she has adopted a Hebrew name, Esther. She has worn a red string on her wrist to ward off the ‘evil eye,’ and used sacred prayer accessories and symbolic Hebrew letters in music videos and concerts….Madonna is a student of the Kabbalah Centre, a worldwide education organization…The center does not require students to be Jewish, and the study can be incorporated into any faith, said Robin Davis, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based organization.”[kkk]

We know that the influence that this one celebrity has had on modern-day America, and indeed the world, has been anything but positive. The same can easily be said with some of the other celebrities who are likewise investigating Kabbalah. Is this just a passing fad for them, or is it something more permanent? Regardless of whether it is a passing fad or not, we do know that such celebrities have experimented with various religions, specifically those relating to New Age and the occult, and Kabbalah is of the same spirit as these things are. The Scriptures plainly warn us, “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).

I have seen a variety of Messianic Bible versions on the market. Is there any particular one that you recommend? What is your opinion of them?

There are a wide variety of Bible versions available on the market, which to various degrees have been produced with a Messianic audience in mind. Some of them are good, and some of them are questionable, perhaps no different than the many Christian Bibles that are available today. Some of them represent a good, conservative theological position, and affirm foundational doctrines of the faith, and some of them skew foundational doctrines of the faith.

The most commonly encountered Messianic version today, used within a great deal of Messianic Judaism and many sectors of the independent Messianic movement, has to be the Complete Jewish Bible translated by David H. Stern (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998). The CJB uses a wide array of Hebrew and Jewish terms, including personal names of Biblical characters, place names, and terms used for ritual objects and practices. “Torah” is most often used for “Law.” One feature of the CJB that all readers need to be aware of, is that even though it is commonly used throughout the Messianic world, it is nevertheless a paraphrased version, and is not as literal as Christian versions like the NASB/NASU, RSV/NRSV/ESV, or even NIV/TNIV, and because of this, our ministry has only used the CJB in a secondary capacity. It is most appreciated, though, that the reasons for some of Stern’s renderings are offered in his valuable companion, the Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995).

As of Summer 2011, the Tree of Life Messianic Family Bible—New Covenant (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2011) has been released, with the complete Bible of both the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) due to be released sometime in 2013. The TLV is largely a Messianic update of the 1901 American Standard Version, with a wide array of well known Messianic Jewish leaders having served on its editorial board. The TLV uses far less Hebrew and Jewish terms than the CJB, sticking primarily to Yeshua, Messiah, Torah, and various ritual items. Other than that, more customary English names like Jacob (for James), Peter, John, Paul, and Moses are used. Those Bible readers who are used to a relatively literal version like the NASB/NASU, or even a dynamic equivalency version like the NIV, will very much appreciate the TLV. The TLV can be easily used as a close second version, alongside of the more well known Bible versions employed today.

Aside from the Complete Jewish Bible, which is used throughout mainline Messianic Judaism, the next most common Messianic version one is likely to encounter is The Scriptures, published by the Institute for Scripture Research of Northriding, South Africa. It should be noted that the ISR Scriptures has both a 1998 second edition and 2009 third edition, with some changes made in the third edition. Unlike versions such as the CJB or TLV, the ISR Scriptures represents a Sacred Name theology, seen by their usage of in Hebrew letters for the Divine Name YHWH/YHVH, instead of either “the LORD,” “ADONAI” (CJB), or “HASHEM” (ATS) per the widescale Jewish practice of not speaking God’s proper name.[lll] The Hebrew title Elohim is used instead of “God.” Hebrew character and place names, as witnessed in versions like the CJB, are also used in the ISR Scriptures (even though the exact transliterations might differ). Unlike either the CJB or TLV, though, the Institute for Scripture Research has not been forthright in saying who served on its translation or editorial team, and as they have stated on their website (isr-messianic.org), “The ISR will not respond to doctrinal questions.” This means that there is no real way of knowing why certain things in the ISR Scriptures are rendered the way they are. Usage of the ISR Scriptures has doubtlessly grown because of how versions like the CJB were paraphrased, and the ISR Scriptures is far more literal. Still, because of the Institute for Scripture Research not holding to any definite doctrinal views, we must advise a high level of caution in using it.

Many of the other “Messianic” Bible versions that one may encounter (more likely being versions produced by the Sacred Name Only movement), tend to be little more than modified editions of the King James Version, with the Elizabethan period English updated with more modern terminology—and then with selective edits here and there, sometimes with Hebraic terms subjectively inserted with no substantial theological justification. Furthermore, a few of those who produce Messianic Bible versions exhibit no formal training in the Biblical languages of Hebrew or Greek, and appear to be nothing more than eclectic re-writings of Scripture to fit some kind of (gross sectarian) bias. Interesting renderings of various controversial verses may be offered, but they are then not joined with any kind of strong theological or exegetical defense in the form of associated research papers or substantial commentary.

Generally speaking, if today’s Messianic Believers can be aware of some specific places within mainline Christian versions like the NASB/NASU or the RSV/ESV—which tend to reflect an anti-Torah bias—then they should be able to get by for most reading fairly well. Verses to definitely be aware of in the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament include:

•      Mark 7:19, where “Thus He declared all foods clean” (NASU) appears, but where the clause katharizōn panta ta brōmata can be legitimately rendered as “cleansing all food” (TLV) or “purging all the foods” (editor’s translation), referring to the process of excretion.[mmm]

•      Romans 10:4, where the word telos is often rendered as “end,” in “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness” (NASU), has widely been recognized in theological studies as also meaning “goal” (CJB, Common English Bible, TLV), or at the very least something akin to “culmination” (TNIV), and not necessarily “end” equaling “termination.”[nnn]

•      Romans 14:14, where Paul says, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (NASU), the term rendered as “unclean” is koinos, which “pert. to being of little value because of being common, common, ordinary, profane” (BDAG).[ooo] In the food lists of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, the Hebrew tamei or “unclean” is rendered as akathartos in the Septuagint, which is obviously not the term that appears in Romans 14:14. Food that is koinos, then, should be regarded as either “unholy” (TLV) or “common” (LITV), which may be viewed as “that which ordinary people eat, in contrast to those of more refined tastes” (BDAG).[ppp] The situation in view would then pertain to various human judgments about what is acceptable for eating, but not have to do with the validity or abrogation of the kosher dietary laws.[qqq]

•      Ephesians 2:15, for most Bible readers, says that the work of the Messiah has been responsible for “abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (NASU). Much of how one approaches what ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin actually is, is in recognizing how nomos or “law” does not always mean the Mosaic Torah or Pentateuch, and how dogma can relate to “that which seems to one, an opinion, dogma” (LS),[rrr] or “something that is taught as an established tenet or statement of belief, doctrine, dogma” (BDAG).[sss] With the barrier wall of the Jerusalem Temple in view (Ephesians 2:14), and with this not at all specified by the Mosaic Torah, extra-Biblical regulations are instead targeted here. It would not at all be inappropriate to then render ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin as “the religious Law of commandments in dogmas” (editor’s translation-JKM), with an italic “religious” specifying that man-made religious law and not Biblical law is in view.[ttt]

Other areas of potential disagreement among English Bible translations, in either the Tanach or Apostolic Scriptures, would then be those places where a spectrum of all interpreters and expositors—including Messianic teachers—do not necessarily see eye-to-eye. This is why there are a series of single translator/author versions on the market, such as The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips, or more recently The Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright. Robert Alter has released a series of specialty volumes on many parts of the Tanach, including the Torah, Psalms, and Wisdom books.

For a further review, consult the article “English Bible Versions and Today’s Messianic Movement,” appearing in the book Confronting Critical Issues by J.K. McKee. This discusses various features of Bible translation, and offers some detailed reviews of some Messianic versions on the market.

NOTES

[a]

(2008). Two-House Doctrine Debate. The Messianic Center. Retrieved 14 August, 2011 from <http://www.themessianiccenter.com>.

[b] Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching the Last Things: Old Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), pp 37-38, 47-49.

[c] I.e., as would be particularly seen in a work like Quest for the Lost Tribes A&E, 1998, DVD 2006, hosted by Simcha Jacobovici, and the concurrent comments witnessed in Jonathan Bernis (2005), The Scattering of the Tribes of Israel, March/April 2005. Jewish Voice Today. Available via <http://www.jewishvoice.org> and Sid Roth, The Incomplete Church: Bridging the Gap Between God’s Children (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2007), pp 17-18.

[d] “And He will lift up a standard for the nations and assemble the banished ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Then the jealousy of Ephraim will depart, and those who harass Judah will be cut off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, and Judah will not harass Ephraim. They will swoop down on the slopes of the Philistines on the west; together they will plunder the sons of the east; they will possess Edom and Moab, and the sons of Ammon will be subject to them. And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Sea of Egypt; and He will wave His hand over the River with His scorching wind; and He will strike it into seven streams Aand make men walk over dry-shod. And there will be a highway from Assyria for the remnant of His people who will be left, just as there was for Israel In the day that they came up out of the land of Egypt” (Isaiah 11:12-16).

[e] “For there will be a day when watchmen on the hills of Ephraim call out, ‘Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the LORD our God.’ For thus says the LORD, ‘Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations; proclaim, give praise and say, “O LORD, save Your people, the remnant of Israel.” Behold, I am bringing them from the north country, and I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together; a great company, they will return here. With weeping they will come, and by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, on a straight path in which they will not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.’ Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare in the coastlands afar off, and say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him and keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock’” (Jeremiah 31:6-10).

[f] “Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God. My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever”’” (Ezekiel 37:21-28).

[g] “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them back, because I have had compassion on them; and they will be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Ephraim will be like a mighty man, and their heart will be glad as if from wine; indeed, their children will see it and be glad, their heart will rejoice in the LORD. I will whistle for them to gather them together, for I have redeemed them; and they will be as numerous as they were before. When I scatter them among the peoples, they will remember Me in far countries, and they with their children will live and come back. I will bring them back from the land of Egypt and gather them from Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon until no room can be found for them” (Zechariah 10:6-10).

[h] Consult the exegesis paper on Galatians 3:28, “Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement” by J.K. McKee.

[i] Consult the relevant sections of the book Confronting Critical Issues: An Analysis of Subjects that Affects the Growth and Stability of the Emerging Messianic Movement by J.K. McKee.

[j] Some preliminary resolution to the complicated issue of the popular/populist Two-House teaching in the broad Messianic movement, and the issue of the exiled Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim in Biblical history and eschatology, is provided in the book Israel in Future Prophecy: Is There a Larger Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel? by J.K. McKee.

[k] “[T]he burnt offering of the new moon and its grain offering, and the continual burnt offering and its grain offering, and their drink offerings, according to their ordinance, for a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the LORD” (Numbers 29:6).

[l] George Robinson, Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs, and Rituals (New York: Pocket Books, 2000), pp 79-80.

[m] Consult the relevant sections of the Messianic Spring Holiday Helper and Messianic Fall Holiday Helper by TNN Press for a further discussion of these issues.

[n] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “6,000 Year Teaching.”

[o] For a worthwhile review, we recommend that you consider the views of Creationist Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, second expanded edition (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001) and A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004).

[p] Information on visiting the cave of Lascaux can be accessed on the French Ministry of Culture website: <http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/>.

[q] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Genesis 5, 11 Genealogies.”

[r] Consult the blog editorial “The Hastening of Righteousness” by J.K. McKee.

[s] “[A]nd he was given the scroll of the prophet Yesha'yahu. Unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of ADONAI is upon me; therefore he has anointed me to announce Good News to the poor; he has sent me to proclaim freedom for the imprisoned and renewed sight for the blind, to release those who have been crushed, to proclaim a year of the favor of ADONAI”” (Luke 4:17-19).

[t] Louis J. Rabinowitz, “God, Names of,” in EJ.

[u] Neusner, Mishnah, 275.

[v] The exact reference in its entirety under the name “Jesus,” specifically indicates “, from Heb. saviour” (Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 541).

[w] Consult B.T. Dahlberg, “Jeshua,” in IDB, 2:867-868. Note that this entry includes the Hebrew and Greek spellings and . See also Thayer, 300; BDAG, 471-472.

[x] Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 1:354-405.

[y] John Gillman, “Justus,” in ABD, 3:1135.

[z] F.F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 180.

[aa] Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon, Vol. 44 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 251.

[bb] Douglas J. Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 340.

[cc] This section includes some embedded quotations from the commentary Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[dd] C.J. Koster, Come Out of Her, My People (Northriding, South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 1998), vi.

[ee] Jack B. Scott, “’ēl,” in TWOT, 1:42.

[ff] John H. Walton, and Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 80.

[gg] Steven Barabas, “Baal,” in NIDB, 113.

[hh] Frank T. Seekins, Hebrew Word Pictures: How Does the Hebrew Alphabet Reveal Prophetic Truths? (Phoenix: Living Word Pictures, 1994), 1.

[ii] Another one of Seekins’ reference sources is Dick Mills and David Michael, Messiah And His Hebrew Alphabet (Orange, CA: Dick Mills Ministries, 1994), which itself only has the Gesenius lexicon as its most scholastic reference (p 142).

[jj] Mark Collier and Bill Manley, How to Read Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, revised edition (London: British Museum Press, 1998), 1.

[kk] Ibid., 2.

[ll] Ibid., 3.

[mm] Ibid., 5.

[nn] Ibid.

[oo] Ibid., pp 6-7.

[pp] Alan Unterman, ed. and trans., The Kabbalistic Tradition: An Anthology of Jewish Mysticism (London: Penguin Books, 2008), pp 102-104.

[qq] Cf. Mills and Michael, 142.

[rr] Michael L. Munk, The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1983), 19.

[ss] This is addressed a bit further, in the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Jots and Tittles.”

[tt] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary.

[uu] Consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Creationism.”

[vv] Perhaps the most well-researched of the Hebraic Roots publications, which gives significance to so-called Hebrew letter pictures, is L. Grant Luton, In His Own Words: Messianic Insights Into the Hebrew Alphabet (Akron, OH: Beth Tikkun Publishing, 1999). Luton’s bibliography notably references openly Kabbalistic sources like Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the Sefer Yetzirah (p 252), or Munk’s The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet (p 253).

[ww] A most poignant example of this would be Brad Marcus (a/k/a Avi ben Mordechai), Messiah Volume 3: Understanding His Identity and Teachings Through the Soul of the Torah (Millennium 7000 Communications, 2001), which blatantly has on its cover an image of the Kabbalistic sefriotic tree. As a testament to this teacher’s personal inconsistency, though, his later volume Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context (Jerusalem: Millennium 7000 Communications, 2005), endorses a Karaite perspective of the Torah, a definite flip-flop given the hyper-traditionalism and hyper-Talmudism of Messiah Volume 3.

[xx] Jewish Study Bible, 2132.

[yy] Gershom Scholem, “Kabbalah (J. mysticism),” in EJ.

[zz] Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (New York: Schoken Books, 1995), pp 274-275.

[aaa] Scholem, “Kaballah (J. mysticism),” in EJ.

[bbb] Ibid.

[ccc] Cohn, “Sorcery,” in EJ.

[ddd] Ibid.

[eee] A rather extensive review is provided by Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton University Press, 1987). Also to be considered is his work Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1941).

[fff] Joseph Dan, “Magic,” in EJ.

[ggg] Ibid.

[hhh] Daniel C. Juster, Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995), pp 238-240.

[iii] Mark Kinzer, “Hashem (The Name)” Verge Vol. 1, Iss. 7, December 2009.

[jjj] One piece of literature circulating throughout the Messianic movement, with a high degree of engagement with the Jewish mystical tradition, is Love and the Messianic Age: Study Guide and Commentary (Marshfield, MO: Vine of David, 2009). This piece itself is a commentary based on the book Paul Philip Levertoff, Love and the Messianic Age (Marshfield, MO: Vine of David, 2009), a 1923 work of comparative religion produced by an early Hebrew Christian pioneer, who was originally raised in the Chassidic tradition in Belarus.

The publication Love and the Messianic Age: Study Guide and Commentary has been negatively received by Tim Hegg, in his article “Are the Scriptures Alone our Sure Foundation or Do We Need Something More?” accessible via <www.torahresource.com>.

[kkk] Tara Dooley (2004). Madonna adopts Kabbalah and new wave of controversy, 27 July, 2004. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 10 October, 2004, from <http://www.religionnewsblog.com>.

[lll] For an important review, consult the article “Sacred Name Concerns” by J.K. McKee.

[mmm] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Mark 7:19,” as well as the forthcoming Messianic Kosher Helper by TNN Press.

[nnn] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Romans 10:4.”

[ooo] BDAG, 552.

[ppp] Ibid.

[qqq] Consult the article “To Eat or Not to Eat?” by J.K. McKee, as well as the forthcoming Messianic Kosher Helper by TNN Press.

[rrr] LS, 207.

[sss] BDAG, 254.

[ttt] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Ephesians 2:14-15.”

FAQs related to The Message of Romans and The Message of Galatians

I am having difficulty understanding the writings of the Apostle Paul. In my spirit, I believe his letters to be inspired of the Holy One, but in reading them I sense that they might be opposed to Torah. Can you help me with this?

There are a variety of important things that any reader of Paul’s letters needs to keep in mind, the foremost being that Paul’s letters were written to ancient groups of Believers in the First Century. When Twenty-First Century readers encounter the Pauline Epistles, we are definitely reading someone else’s mail. Our responsibility, as with any text of Scripture, is to do our best to place ourselves into the original circumstances and setting of a letter’s audience, interpret the letter for what it meant to the audience, and then seek a reasonable application for modern times. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who have difficulty with Paul’s letters, either Messianic or Christian, do not keep this in mind. They think that Paul writes directly to them in the Twenty-First Century, almost ignoring how every one of his letters bears the title of its specific recipients.

A wide number of today’s Messianic Believers tend to have a love-hate relationship with the Apostle Paul. On the one hand, the many passages in Paul’s letters that laud the love of God demonstrated via the Messiah Yeshua, and the service that Believers should have one for another, are greatly appreciated. On the other hand, passages in Paul’s letters that appear to be negative toward the Torah or Law of Moses are either ignored, or they tend to be interpreted along some traditional Christian (typically dispensationalist) lines.

Few of today’s Messianic Believers have really expelled significant efforts to dig beyond an English translation of Paul’s letters, much less into their background and joining into conversations in contemporary Biblical Studies. The widely-known controversy over Romans 10:4, which is commonly rendered with “Christ is the end of the law” (NASU), although telos can also mean “aim,” “purpose,” or “goal” (Common English Bible), or at least “culmination” (TNIV), is something that can be overlooked.[a] If something like this can be overlooked, then more complicated issues like how to render dogma in Ephesians 2:15,[b] or exesti in 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23,[c] can catch people completely off guard. Issues like what “under the law” means, as either having to obey the Mosaic Torah or born again Believers not standing under the condemnation of the Torah upon Law-breakers, are often not even probed or considered.[d]

There are some commonly encountered approaches seen regarding the letters of the Apostle Paul in the broad Messianic movement. Some of these are a bit disturbing, whereas others of these are representative of a particular theological vantage point:

•      View #1: “Paul is a false apostle!” Paul’s writings are against Torah and they should not be considered Scripture.

•      View #2: “I don’t know what to do with Paul.” Paul’s writings are somehow inspired Scripture of the Holy One, but they are just too difficult to interpret or handle. Paul’s approach to the Torah is too complicated for us to really understand.

•      View #3: “Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles.” Paul’s words about the Torah represent a bilateral ecclesiology of Israel and the Church. His letters about Torah speak of Gentiles in the Christian Church not having to follow it, and were not written to Jews who are to keep it. While appearing to be negative, Paul does not think that Gentiles have to follow Torah, as that would erase or blur Jewish and Gentile distinction.

•      View #4: “Paul’s letters have transmission and background issues to be carefully considered.” The issue of Paul and the Law is a complicated debate in theological studies. In the Lutheran tradition, Paul is believed to place God’s Law and God’s grace at odds with one another. In the Calvinist and Wesleyan traditions, though, Paul is believed to always uphold God’s moral Law as a standard of Christian holiness, to be followed by all. Messianic Believers need to appreciate approaches like that of Calvinism and Wesleyanism, and further investigate the text of the Pauline corpus for its transmission from Greek into English, and potential First Century background issues.

View #4, “Paul’s letters have transmission and background issues to be carefully considered,” is definitely how a ministry like Outreach Israel and TNN Online has chosen to handle and interpret Paul’s letters. We do not consider the Apostle Paul to be anti-Torah by any means, but there should also be no question that Paul, as well as other figures like James, Peter, and John—all believe that faith in Yeshua and what He has accomplished by His sacrifice for sinful humanity, are more important than the Torah of Moses. The Apostolic Scriptures are absolutely opposed to a principle of Torah-keeping for salvation and a legalistic misuse of the Torah. Consistent with the cries of Ancient Israel’s Prophets, the Apostolic Scriptures also tend to be stridently focused on the moral and ethical issues addressed by Moses’ Teaching, as Yeshua Himself directed His followers to focus on “the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). This does not mean that things like Sabbath-keeping or kosher eating were unimportant,[e] just that the focus of teaching we see in the Apostolic Scriptures seems to be more targeted toward basic human behavioral issues. In terms of the early non-Jewish Believers, who often came from the lower classes, it should not be difficult to understand why the Apostles stridently focused on them repenting from gross sins such as idolatry or sexual immorality.[f]

Like all texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, it would go too far for one to think that the issue of Torah-keeping is the only issue addressed by the Pauline Epistles. Each one of Paul’s letters is addressed to a particular ancient audience or person, and likely to issue specific instruction or admonitions for circumstances faced by such audiences or persons. In much of today’s Messianic movement, there tends to not be a wide enough comprehension for the actual identity of the audience of Paul’s letters, and the basic situation(s) being addressed. If this is done, then readers will see that Paul is not at all anti-Torah.

The following is a brief summary of each of the Pauline letters, listed in their canonical order. This should be useful for providing you with some basic guidelines when approaching Paul’s letters as a Messianic Believer:

Romans: This letter was largely written to tell the Roman Believers that Paul was coming their way, as he intended to travel all the way to Spain. Not having encountered these Believers before, Paul lays out much of his teaching style and approach in the form of various vignettes. As he does this, he must address the circumstances which have arisen from the Roman Jews having been expelled from Rome by the Edict of Claudius, but were now returning. This created a power struggle between the Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, the latter not being forced to leave. Romans emphasizes how the non-Jewish Believers rely more on the Jewish Believers than they realize, and how all are to respect one another given the universal realities of human sin. Paul lays out in salvation historical terms how all Israel is to be restored, and the place of the nations in such a restoration.

1 Corinthians: This letter was composed to address an intensely complicated series of circumstances, for one of the most dysfunctional groups of First Century Messiah followers. The Corinthian Believers had been booted out of the local synagogue, they were factionalized, and they were known by various slogans (i.e., “everything is permissible for me”). Paul had to address an entire series of problems faced by the Corinthians, including fornication, eating meat sacrificed to idols, and disorderly conduct in the assembly. It is detectable within Paul’s letter that he quotes various Corinthian slogans, and refutes them or shows them to be significantly problematic. The doctrine of resurrection is significantly expounded upon as a core tenet of Messianic faith.

2 Corinthians: This letter was a follow up to various reports that Paul had received about the spiritual progress of the Corinthians. While the Corinthians still had problems yet to be resolved, they had taken much of the Apostle’s admonishment to them seriously, and were improving in their behavior.

Galatians: This letter was written to address how the non-Jewish Believers in Galatia had been led astray by outside Influencers (or “Judaizers”) who were forcing them to go through ritual proselyte circumcision to Judaism, to really be members of God’s people. The “works of law” spoken against in this letter likely had to do less with general obedience to God’s Torah, and more to do with ancient halachah or how the Torah was followed by an ancient Jewish sect. In Galatians, Paul places the emphasis of membership in God’s covenant people on faith in Yeshua and what He has achieved via His sacrifice, not how human works associated with the Torah are to achieve redemption and such membership.

Ephesians: This letter was a general epistle written to various assemblies of Messiah followers in Asia Minor. Paul expresses how the great work of Yeshua the Messiah has reconciled Jewish and non-Jewish Believers together as “one new humanity” in the Commonwealth of Israel. Their unity is to be a reflection of the greater work to come in salvation history, and is to be modeled by Believers’ good conduct and service to one another, via employment of their unique spiritual gifts in the Lord. This letter was likely written at the same time as Colossians, perhaps expanding various themes seen in Colossians.

Philippians: This letter was written to a group of Paul’s dear friends in Philippi, as he languished in a Roman prison, not quite knowing what was yet to happen. Unlike some of Paul’s other letters, there are no major negative rebukes issued to this audience, as the words are largely those of great appreciation to fellow Believers. Paul undoubtedly has lived a life with Yeshua the Messiah at its very center, as who He is and what He has accomplished make all human achievements—Jewish, Greek, or Roman—utterly meaningless.

Colossians: This letter was written to address a congregation that Paul had never before seen in person, but had grown up in Colossae as a result of his preaching in Ephesus. The people were largely influenced by a false teaching that was rooted within a local Judaism that itself had been infected by the local paganism and mystery cults (perhaps to be described as proto-Gnostic). This false teaching had advocated that Yeshua the Messiah was only one of various intermediary forces, and not really that Divine, and also pushed various ascetic rituals and practices like intense fasting. The false teaching had an emphasis on various Torah practices, but such Torah practices were misused as they were associated with various ungodly emphases.

1 Thessalonians: This letter was largely written to provide some reassurances to the Thessalonicans, whom Paul had to abruptly leave because of pressure enforced upon him by the local Jewish leaders because of his preaching the gospel. The Thessalonicans were experiencing persecution, and Paul gave them some important instruction about the return of the Messiah and future resurrection of the dead.

2 Thessalonians: This second letter was written to the Thessalonicans shortly after the first letter, because of a misunderstanding of various remarks made about the end-times. The Thessalonicans thought the Messiah was imminently coming, probably due to some agitators who had entered in among them, and so Paul must assure them how various events must precede the return of Yeshua.

1 Timothy: This first letter to Timothy was composed as Timothy was given the task by Paul of overseeing various assemblies in the vicinity of Ephesus. A false teaching had arisen in Ephesus with inappropriate emphases from the Torah, which had widely overlooked the many key teachings of the Law on proper and upstanding living. Timothy also had to see that proper leaders were raised up among the Ephesians, and see that the women in Ephesus were correctly trained and dignified in their activities.

2 Timothy: This second letter to Timothy includes more details about the false teaching that had arisen in Ephesus, which apparently advocated that the general resurrection had already taken place. More than anything else, 2 Timothy represents a kind of “last will and testament” of the Apostle Paul, in Roman imprisonment once again, as he knows he is soon to die and meet the Lord Yeshua.

Titus: This letter was written to address the unique service that Titus performed for Paul, helping to get the Messiah followers on the island of Crete established in the Lord. There are some overlaps between the Cretan false teaching, and the Ephesian false teaching faced by Timothy, likely detectable. Titus seemingly had to face a group of opportunistic Jewish people who were misusing the Torah, and negatively influencing the Cretan Believers.

Philemon: This letter was written to address the circumstances by which the runaway slave Onesimus encountered Paul in Rome, and how he came to faith in Yeshua as a result. Paul writes this letter to Philemon, a Believer in either Colossae or the Lycus Valley of Asia Minor, entreating him to be kind and generous to Onesimus. Philemon was written at the same time as Colossians.

The Apostle Paul is not anti-Torah, in that he is opposed to the Law of Moses as a standard to be followed by all of God’s people. He makes it clear in Romans 8:4, for example, “that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit,” a certain reference to the New Covenant promise to supernaturally transcribe the Torah onto the hearts and minds of the redeemed (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27).[g] Torah-keeping is to definitely come via the supernatural compulsion of God’s Spirit on those who are in Messiah.[h] Yet, Paul is also clear that who Yeshua is as the Savior is superior to the Torah, as he says in Philippians 3:9 that “[I] may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Messiah [or, the faithfulness of Messiah][i], the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”

It is irresponsible for any of today’s Messianics to claim that the Apostle Paul is anti-Torah, when most frequently those who make such a conclusion have not conducted a targeted examination of the passages they struggle with, including the Greek source text and potential historical and background issues.

Our ministry has released a wide array of materials that can aid you in your understanding of the Pauline Epistles, including the general book The New Testament Validates Torah, various “Message of…” articles, the relevant entries in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic, and specific volumes of the Practical Messianic commentary series (as of 2012: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians-Philemon, 1&2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus).

I have heard that the Torah actually composes the “elemental things of the world”? Is there any truth to this claim?

The specific clause ta stoicheia tou kosmou—“the elemental things/spirits of the world”—appears in full in Galatians 4:3 and Colossians 2:8, followed by the shorter stoicheia in Galatians 4:9, and tōn stoicheiōn in Colossians 2:20. There is no single interpretation as to what this encompasses, agreed upon by all interpreters, as such “principles” could involve: (1) the ABCs of one’s religious observance, (2) what many of the ancients believed were the basic elements of the universe (i.e., earth, water, air, fire), or (3) cosmic spiritual powers like angels or demons. With these three major options alone to be considered, it should not be surprising as to why there is no full consensus as to what ta stoicheia tou kosmou means when read within the Pauline letters.

The second usage of “elemental principles of the world” in Colossians 2:8, 20 is much easier to consider, as more information is given to us within the wider text of Paul’s writing. A fair number of Colossians interpreters are agreed that the issue confronted by Paul to his audience relates to a proto-Gnostic, mysticized Judaism, involving appeals (or even worship of!) made to angels (Colossians 2:18) and/or various spirit powers rather than Yeshua the Messiah.[j] The local Judaism infecting the Believers at Colossae, which in turn had been infected by the local mishmash of Hellenistic, foreign, and mystical religious and philosophical beliefs in Phrygia, was leading many of the Believers astray. Some have concluded that the errors present among the Colossian Believers may be appropriated as a warning for people today errantly influenced by horoscopes or fortune-telling, yet in the Colossians’ case there may be more of a connection to mystery religions and cults.

While it is not at all difficult to see what ta stoicheia tou kosmou can mean in regard to Colossians 2:9, 20—as there are concrete examples of religious asceticism stated in the text (Colossians 2:18, 20-23)—what ta stoicheia tou kosmou might mean in regard to Galatians 4:3, 9 is much more complicated.

Being subject to ta stoicheia tou kosmou is a problem that can be Jewish (cf. Galatians 4:3), while at the same time it is more easily discernible as pagan. Paul writes the non-Jewish Galatians, “now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?” (Galatians 4:9). Various Galatians interpreters conclude that here Paul has just associated God’s commandments and paganism as basically being the same thing.[k] The foolish Galatians, being led astray by the Influencers/Judaizers, are returning to a style of life that they should have left behind in paganism, following rules and regulations that are nothing more than worldly principles. While it is likely that Paul used ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Colossians to refute errant, Gnostic/mystical practices, the first usage of ta stoicheia tou kosmou is said to be employed in a much different way.

Is God’s Torah nothing more than “elementary principles of the world” to Paul? While it is not difficult to see how human beings approaching God’s Torah can turn it into something via their own observance (i.e., like the sectarian “works of law” witnessed in 4QMMT) into just fleshly rudiments—this is surely not the Torah’s fault! Paul is the same one who would communicate “we know that the Law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14) and “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV). In fact, he says “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7, NIV).

Is it at all possible that there is another explanation for what Paul means in Galatians 4:3, 9? While it may not be a popular one among today’s Galatians expositors, there is indeed another way we can look at this. Paul asks the Galatians, “how can you turn back again…?” (RSV) or return (Grk. epistrephō) to the elementary principles of the world. All should be agreed that the Galatians were going back to things they should have left behind in paganism. But is Paul associating First Century Judaism and paganism as being quantitatively indifferent? Are God’s commandments in the Torah no different than a pagan philosophy or superstition? Or, if some sects of First Century Judaism had been errantly affected by aspects of paganism (such as the Hellenistic concept of Fate; cf. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.172)—could those errantly influencing the Galatians similarly be part of a sectarian Judaism that advocated rituals similar to those in paganism?

Consider how Paul previously has asked the Galatians “who has bewitched you…?” (Galatians 3:1). While it is easy for people in today’s West to consider such a question to only be a rhetorical device, the fact remains that in ancient times various religious sects really did use witchcraft to cast spells and hexes on people, and parts of Judaism were not immune to this, either. Likewise, Paul says of the Influencers/Judaizers that they “do not even keep the Law themselves” (Galatians 6:13). How could he say this if these people were just misguided legalists, only forcing ritual circumcision and proselyte conversion onto the non-Jews in Galatia? Given how ta stoicheia tou kosmou is later used in Colossians to depict errant, syncretistic Jewish practices—is it so impossible that the Influencers in Galatia could have also brought in errant, syncretistic practices? These could be things able to “bewitch” them.

The idea that the Influencers/Judaizers in Galatia could have advocated some kind of proto-Gnostic or mystical Jewish errors is not one often seen in contemporary Galatians interpretation, but it cannot be totally taken off the table. In worrying about the Galatians observing “days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10), is Paul really up in arms about the Galatians remembering things like the Passover—which he actually instructed the Corinthians to observe (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)? Or would he be more concerned about the rituals and customs associated with the appointed times, brought in and practiced by the Influencers/Judaizers, which were affecting the Galatians? Samuel J. Mikolaski’s comments are well taken:

“Are these Jewish or pagan observances? In writing to the Galatians, Paul clearly has Judaizers in mind. Did these worship elemental spirits? Astrological elements were at times infused into Jewish as well as pagan practices.”[l]

An alternative to be considered to Paul associating God’s commandments with paganism—and that the Galatians should not be following God’s Torah—is that in being affected by the Influencers, the Galatians were following errant religious rituals that saturated the Influencers’ style of Torah observance. The problem would not be the Galatians remembering the Sabbath (especially since Paul met many of them at Shabbat services, per his visit to Galatia in Acts 13:13-14:28) or the appointed times, but rather how the Influencers observed them, infused with ungodly pagan rituals that the Galatians should have easily recognized as originating from “those who by nature are not gods” (Galatians 4:8, NIV).

If this is to be considered, then it does not seem difficult as to why Paul would say that the Influencers/Judaizers break the very Torah they claim to uphold (Galatians 6:13). They have already merited the Torah’s curse upon them for failing to be a blessing to others per God’s promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8, 10), but they deserve it further by encouraging the Galatians to follow ungodly rituals actually opposed by the Torah (i.e., Deuteronomy 18:10-14) that negatively affected their sectarian branch of Judaism, and considered by Paul to be classified among the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).

Realizing that there are First Century Judaisms, plural, that are depicted within the Apostolic Scriptures is a difficult step for many readers to make, as many prefer to over-simplify the circumstances within the New Testament. Some branches of Ancient Judaism were affected by paganism. Not only are we supposed to realize this, but we are also required to make closer observations in reading the text, and ask ourselves some critical questions like whether Paul does associate God’s commandments and paganism as being the same thing. Messianics today do not believe that the good rabbi from Tarsus associates God’s commandments as being synonymous with paganism. Yet, some Messianics today do not heed the warning given by Paul against ta stoicheia tou kosmou, sometimes failing to realize that they may have been affected by various Jewish errors, which in turn have been affected by paganism. Fortunately, though, this does not concern a considerable majority of traditions employed today by the Synagogue, or even by Messianic Judaism, in its remembrance of the appointed times (cf. Philippians 4:8).[m]

I have heard a teaching which stated that the term “works of the Law” actually refers to Rabbinical extra-Biblical commandments? Is there any substantiation for this?

This entry has been reproduced from the paperback edition of Galatians for the Practical Messianic

The Apostle Paul’s usage of the term “works of law” three times in Galatians 2:16 is the first usage of ergōn nomou in the Apostolic Scriptures. “Works of law” is used a total of six times in Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10), and is only used elsewhere in his letter to the Romans (3:20, 28). Generally speaking, common Christian interpretations of this phrase have advocated that ergōn nomou or “works of law” means “observing the law” (NIV), meaning some kind of general Torah observance. It has only been in recent days with the proposals made by the New Perspective of Paul (NPP) in theological studies, that ergōn nomou takes on something different, or more specific, than just rote observance of the Mosaic Law. These propositions have significantly aided Messianic understanding of Paul’s words,[n] as Paul is seen to be criticizing a sectarian observance of the Torah that impedes God’s mission of blessing all nations (Genesis 12:2; Galatians 3:8-9), rather than general observance of the Torah itself.

Of course, there is considerable discussion as to whether or not when Paul uses ergōn nomou he is really connecting it to some of the ideas present in ma’asei haTorah in 4QMMT from the Dead Sea Scrolls.[o] After defining some of the major rules of the Qumran community, this document ends with the statement,

“Now we have written to you some of the works of the Law [Heb. miqsat ma’asei ha-Torah], those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law” (4Q399).[p]

Many, acknowledging a connection between ergōn nomou and ma’asei haTorah, conclude that the “works of law” of which Paul speaks are “the boundary markers that clearly distinguished Jews from their neighbors—circumcision, the sabbath, and the purity laws” (EDB).[q] There are, however, Christian theologians who are resistant to “works of law” having any technical reference to either boundary markers, or to the halachah of a sectarian Jewish community. Those who are resistant are often so because it requires one to take a more moderate view of the Torah in Pauline literature. Among these, T.R. Schreiner argues, “the expression ‘works’ (erga) in Paul refers to ‘deeds that are performed,’ and thus ‘works of Law’ signifies the ‘deeds’ or ‘actions’ demanded by the Mosaic Law.”[r]

It would certainly be irresponsible for readers to think that any time Paul uses the term “works” he is speaking of “works of law.”[s] He most often uses “works” as comparable to “deeds.” Likewise, when Paul uses “works of law” or ergōn nomou, the Torah is somehow involved. The question is whether these “works of law” are simply “doing what the Law commanded” (Schreiner),[t] or alternatively, applying the Torah’s instructions in a particular way. If it is the latter, then it can reorient our interpretation of some of Paul’s words in Galatians and Romans. Paul’s argument would not be against “the Torah” per se, but rather its interpretation and application by a particular sector of the ancient Jewish community.

Galatians 2:15, 16 give us some clues that ergōn nomou is likely Paul’s Greek equivalent of ma’asei haTorah, especially considering the way he addresses Peter. In v. 15 he tells Peter hēmeis phusei Ioudaioi, “we are Jews by nature,” continuing in v. 16 with eidotes de hoti ou dikaioutai anthrōpos ex ergōn nomou, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by works of the Law.” The verb eidotes is a plural participle, indicating that “we know” (NEB, NRSV, ESV). Paul is likely communicating to Peter as a fellow Jew, and we can deduce that as Jews they had some ideas as to what “works of law” meant as a technical phrase.

Christian commentators, recognizing the probable connection between ma’asei haTorah and ergōn nomou, have only so far been able to concede that “works of law” in the Pauline corpus pertain to Jewish identity markers. So, while not being general obedience to the Mosaic Torah, per se, “works of the law” were those things that were to clearly separate Israel from the Gentile world around it, namely things like the Sabbath, appointed times, dietary laws, and circumcision.[u] While this may prove discouraging to some Messianic interpreters—as these are elements of Biblical practice that we believe God is restoring to His people as relevant—the discussion of “works of law” being something other than general Torah observance as a whole, certainly opens up some useful interpretational possibilities. Among Messianic interpreters, Tim Hegg describes,

“What we now understand is that the phrase ‘works of the Law/Torah’ was used in Paul’s day to refer [to] specific sets of rules or halachah which a group required for its self-definition. Simply put, such a list of ‘works of the Torah’ constituted the entrance requirements into the group…‘Works of the Torah,’ then, refers to halachah required for entrance into the covenant community (as required by each sect), not personal obedience to God’s word.”[v]

In the actual text of 4QMMT, one finds that “works of law” were not, actually, some kind of macro-Jewish identity markers such as the Sabbath, appointed times, dietary laws, or circumcision. These appear to have been assigned somewhat arbitrarily by New Testament scholars. On the contrary, what we see is a strict, sectarian style of halachah, not only focused on purity—but a praxis that will inevitably keep more people out of God’s community than welcome people into it. The “works of law” may be considered as some kind of micro-Jewish identity markers, specific to the group or sect that held them to be important. The issue in 4QMMT, in a manner of speaking, is the club rules of the Qumran community, which they felt were the proper interpretation and application of the Torah. Dunn actually concurs, “‘deeds of the law’ denote the interpretations of the Torah which marked out the Qumran community as distinctive, the obligations which members took upon themselves as members and by which they maintained their membership.”[w] N.T. Wright offers a further and more detailed explanation:

“The (sectarian) code of MMT is designed to say, ‘Do these particular “works of Torah,” and they will mark you out in the present as the true covenant people.’ These ‘works’ in question in MMT were not sabbath, food laws and circumcision…Rather, the particular and very specific codes in MMT include various aspects of ritual performance (the calendar, regulations about water, marriage laws and so on), some of which were markers against Gentiles, but most of which were markers designed to demonstrate membership of the particular sect, the people that believed itself to be the inauguration of God’s new covenant people. What the author is saying is: these ‘works of Torah’ will bring upon you God’s reckoning of righteousness’ here and now, and that verdict will be repeated ‘on the last day.’”[x]

The primary “works of law” in view in Galatians, and to a lesser extent Romans, would involve the demand of ritual proselyte circumcision for the new, non-Jewish Believers entering into the Body of Messiah, most likely by a rigid and legalistic sector of Jewish Believers.

For some of those who have difficulty seeing “works of the law” as anything other than general observance of the Torah, it should be stressed that what is emphasized in the passages where ergōn nomou appears (Galatians 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Romans 3:20, 28) is an inappropriate application of the Torah. From this point of view, when Paul says in Galatians 2:16 that “a man is not justified by works of the Law,” he does legitimately speak of “observing the law” (NIV) to attain justification as a remission of sins. At the same time, though, concurrent with Paul’s specific incident with Peter in Antioch, and what he wants the Galatians to understand, “works of law” regards human observances and interpretations of how a particular group has decided to, in this case, inappropriately apply the Torah.

The controversial part of not being “justified” by “works of law,” particularly for some from more fundamental Christian backgrounds, is acknowledging that “justification” is more than just an individual’s vindication before God via the work of His Son. Given the usage of tzedaqah in parts of the Tanach pertaining to Israel’s status before God, and the issues that Paul addresses in Galatians pertaining to non-Jewish Believers’ inclusion in the community of faith, such justification is also corporate—not just individualistic. One’s entry into God’s covenant community is not “works of law,” namely the halachah of a particular group (in the case of Galatians, those requiring ritual proselyte circumcision)—but it is faith in the Messiah of Israel and what He has accomplished in being sacrificed for sinners. While individual justification may come first, a clear result of that is being in covenant relationship with one’s brothers and sisters who have also been redeemed.

“Works of law” being the particular halachah of a sectarian community gives much for the contemporary Church to not only consider, but also for today’s Messianic community. Do we allow people to join our assemblies because they have made a proclamation of faith in Yeshua? Or, in the case of some Messianic congregations, because they fit a series of requirements? Today in some growing sectors of the Messianic community, non-Jewish Believers are spurned unless they undergo some kind of ritual “conversion” that only a sub-sect of the denomination can offer. But this goes against Paul’s clear instruction in Galatians. Not only does one’s personal redemption not come from keeping “works of law,” but one’s inclusion among God’s people is not to occur from “works of law,” either. Instead, one is to stand justified before God on the basis of faith in Him and what Yeshua has accomplished via His atoning work for fallen humanity, and one is to be accepted in the ekklēsia on the basis of faith in Him and His saving activity for all sinners.[y]

NOTES

[a]

Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Romans 10:4.”

[b] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Ephesians 2:14-15.”

[c] Consult the FAQ entries on the TNN website, “1 Corinthians 6:12” and “1 Corinthians 10:23.”

[d] Consult the articles “What Does ‘Under the Law’ Really Mean?” and “What Does ‘Under the Law’ Really Mean?—A Further Study” by J.K. McKee.

[e] Consult the Messianic Sabbath Helper and Messianic Kosher Helper (forthcoming) by TNN Press.

[f] Consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[g] Consult the article “What is the New Covenant?” by J.K. McKee.

[h] It may be useful for you to review the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Galatians 5:2-3,” which examines the issue of whether or not Jewish people are “obligated” to keep the Torah, and non-Jewish people are not “obligated.”

[i] Grk. dia pisteōs Christou.

[j] Cf. F.F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp 97-98; Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon, Vol. 44 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 110; Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp 187-193.

[k] Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, Vol. 41 (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1990), pp 180-181; Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp 298-299.

[l] Samuel J. Mikolaski, “Galatians,” in D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1100.

[m] For a further evaluation of the options available, consult D.G. Reid, “Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp 229-233.

[n] Cf. Hegg, Galatians, 11.

[o] Wise, Abegg, and Cook, pp 358-364; Vermes, pp 220-228.

[p] Ibid, 364.

[q] James W. Thompson, “works,” in EDB, 1387.

[r] T.R. Schreiner, “works of the law,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 977.

[s] Other instances in his letters where Paul uses the term “works” or “deeds” (Grk. sing. ergon) in more a general sense, includes: Romans 2:6f, 15; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32; 11:6; 13:3, 12; 14:20; 15:18; 1 Corinthians 3:13ff; 5:2; 9:1; 15:58; 16:10; 2 Corinthians 9:8; 10:11; 11:15; Galatians 5:19; 6:4; Ephesians 2:9f; 4:12; 5:11; Philippians 1:6, 22; 2:30; Col. 1:10, 21; 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 5:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2:17; 1 Timothy 2:10; 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:21; 3:17; 4:5, 14, 18; Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 5, 8, 14.

It is only in specific areas of Galatians and Romans where “works of law” as a technical phrase needs to be considered, that can reorient our understanding of what Paul is communicating.

[t] Schreiner, “works of the law,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 975.

[u] Cf. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, pp 218-220.

[v] Hegg, Galatians, 100.

[w] Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 204.

[x] N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 146.

[y] For a further discussion, consult the chapters “What Are ‘Works of the Law’?” and “The Faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah” in the book The New Testament Validates Torah by J.K. McKee.

FAQs related to One Law for All

How much of Torah were the gerim/sojourners expected to keep, when compared to the natives of Israel?

The sojourner or ger[a] (also commonly rendered as “alien” or “foreigner” in various English Bibles), the plural being gerim, was an outsider who entered into the community of Ancient Israel, and was certainly of a different class than a foreign worker or mere passer-by. The ger was one who acknowledged Israel’s God, repudiated idolatry, but had no inheritance in the Promised Land. Perhaps one of the most well known gerim was Ruth the Moabitess, who is classicly known for saying, “your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” (Ruth 1:16). In many cases, one gets the distinct impression that a majority of sojourners or gerim who entered into the community of Ancient Israel, were people who were poor and destitute, and as such much of the Torah legislation that is given regarding sojourners, was to make sure that they were not taken advantage of for their lowly condition.

There has certainly been a great amount of discussion and debate, in various Messianic quarters, regarding the Torah adherence of the ancient ger or sojourner in Ancient Israel—largely in order to determine or discern how much or how little of God’s Law that today’s non-Jewish Believers should be anticipated or expected to keep. Much of this discussion has been focused around passages of the Torah detailing “one law” or “one statute” to be followed by the native Israelite and the sojourner (Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16, 29-30). The majority of these passages actually pertain to specific legislation, where a uniform set of instruction needed to be followed. What these passages establish in a wider, theological and philosophical sense, has caused interpreters to draw a number of conclusions. Traditional Judaism widely interprets the “one law” passages as implying that the ger in Ancient Israel was only anticipated or expected to keep a minimum amount of Torah commandments,[b] and this is followed by many of today’s Messianic Jews. Others in the broader Messianic community have held to the position that while the native Israelite and sojourner are not exactly the same, there are too many areas of equivalence, and that the sojourner was anticipated to keep the considerable bulk of the Torah’s commandments,[c] which for many in ancient times would inevitably lead to circumcision and native status being granted.

A variety of Torah instructions, where the ger is specifically enjoined to Torah adherence, notably include:

•      Sabbath rest (Exodus 20:10; 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14)

•      a fair trial (Deuteronomy 1:16)

•      access to cities of refuge (Numbers 35:11; cf. Joshua 20:9)

•      participation in the Festival of Sukkot/Tabernacles and the Festival of Shavuot/Weeks (Deuteronomy 16:11, 14)

•      observance of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:29)

•      some expectation to observe the Passover (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 9:14)

•      observance of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:19)

•      observance of sacrificial procedures (Leviticus 17:8; 22:18; Numbers 15:14-16)

•      atonement for unintentional and intentional sin (Numbers 15:16-31)

•      purification rites after eating unclean meat (Leviticus 17:15; Numbers 19:10)

•      prohibition on offering sacrifices to Molech (Leviticus 20:2)

•      penalties for blaspheming the name of the Lord (Numbers 24:16)

•      adherence to sexual and moral purity (Leviticus 18:26)

•      observance of the law of damages or lex talionis (Leviticus 24:20-22)

•      the option of being circumcised to keep the Passover, and consequently being regarded as a native (Exodus 12:43-47)

It should not be a surprise, that for an interpreter like D.I. Block, when these specific instructions referencing the ger are considered, that he can conclude, “sojourners were to be treated for the most part just like ordinary Israelites.”[d]

Of course, there were some notable differences between the sojourners and natives within Ancient Israel. An animal that died of natural causes could be given to a sojourner (Deuteronomy 14:21), and a sojourner could be placed into permanent slavery (Leviticus 25:39-43, 46, 54-55). Yet, both of these specific stipulations probably related to the widespread condition of most gerim being poor and destitute. The ger is targeted among several groups in Ancient Israel, as being those who were allowed to glean the crops of fields (Leviticus 19:10; 23:22). “[L]ike the widow and the orphan, the sojourner is in a distinct social class, part of a group which requires special care and protection. The Israelites are expected to provide this care and protection for these foreigners who live among them, because they too were once foreigners sojourning in a strange land” (ABD).[e]

To a theologian like R.J.D. Knauth, when viewing the main Torah instructions about the ger, his conclusion is, “one gains the distinct general impression that resident aliens were envisioned as being accorded equal treatment [by] the law (Lev 19:33-34; cf. Deut 24:14-15, 17-18), with only a few exceptions.”[f] Such exceptions would widely have been because of economic and social vulnerability.[g]

It is fair to say that within much of today’s Messianic Jewish community—which tends to approach the issue of non-Jewish inclusion in their congregations, in a similar manner to how the ger was to be incorporated into Ancient Israel—will recognize how the ger or sojourner was specifically enjoined to keep a great deal of the Torah’s commandments. Yet, in addition to some of the economically-conditioned exceptions between the sojourner and native, it is widely believed among many Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers—who are following traditional Jewish interpretations of the Torah—that the ger was not likely to keep as much of the Torah as a Bible reader may be likely to conclude.

One common example that is often thought to enjoin specific Torah instructions upon the native Israelite, and likely not upon the sojourner, might be the kosher dietary laws. Leviticus 11:2 states, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.” This instruction is directed to b’nei Yisrael, “the sons of Israel” or the “children of Israel.” No specific reference is seen regarding the ger in Leviticus ch. 11, where the lists of clean and unclean animal species are detailed. Later in Leviticus 17:10-11, though, it is specified that both those of Israel and the sojourners are not to consume blood:

“And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.”

Here, a member of Beit Yisrael and the ger are both decisively prohibited from consuming animal blood. Now, does this mean that the native Israelite was prohibited from eating certain unclean animals and from eating the blood of clean animals—and that the sojourner was only prohibited from eating the blood of animals, clean or unclean? This is what has been traditionally concluded in much of Judaism. However, further on in Leviticus 17:13, we see something stated that should give us pause to consider whether this conclusion is entirely proper:

“So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.”

Here, the scene is what is to be done when one of the b’nei Yisrael, or someone who is a ger, is out hunting. The animals in view are those which may be eaten (Heb. asher yei’akeil), rightfully concluded to mean, as some dynamic equivalency versions have put it, “is approved for eating” (NLT) or “which is ritually clean” (Good News Bible).[h] The blood of such animals caught in the wild was to be drained out, and was then to be covered over with dirt. Would it make any logical sense for the ger or sojourner to be limited to eating permitted, clean animals caught in the wild—but not have the same prohibition for domesticated animals? Of course not.

In Leviticus 11:2 the b’nei Yisrael in view are rightly taken to be the entire, mixed assembly of Israel, as is the case in many, many places in the Pentateuch. (This is certainly the case in the listing of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17.) In Leviticus 17:13, however, the ger is specifically mentioned to hunt and catch only permitted animals—likely as a reflection of most sojourners’ low economic status. For, those who frequently must glean a farmer’s field for crops, are the same who will often have to hunt and scavenge for wild animals to eat. The higher principle for sure, for both native and sojourner, is to abstain from consuming animal blood. Yet, a sojourner in Ancient Israel, who was limited in what animals may be caught in the wild—the same animals that the native is only permitted to consume—will by necessity be pointed to know what domesticated animals may be eaten, which are largely detailed in Leviticus ch. 11. That the ger or sojourner, within the community of Ancient Israel, was anticipated to observe the kosher dietary laws along with the native, is definitely detectable.

The example of the sojourner being set on a certain trajectory toward eating kosher, i.e., keeping more of the Torah, given his likely economic conditions, is one of a selection that can only be best considered by a careful examination of specific places within the Pentateuch. Considering the various areas where traditional Judaism has concluded that the native Israelite was expected to follow certain instruction, and the sojourner was not, goes beyond the scope of this FAQ entry (but will play an important part in some planned volumes of the Messianic Helper series by TNN Press, and perhaps future commentaries in the Practical Messianic series as well).

While Bible readers need to recognize how the Torah anticipated outsiders, gerim or sojourners, entering into the community of Israel—turning away from their pagan idolatry, turning to God, with the natives of Israel enjoined to love and welcome them—such sojourners were by no means a monolithic group. A ger, who had just committed himself to the God of Israel, was in a much different position than a ger who had lived within the community for a number of years. Unless a ger had been left abandoned as a child, and was taken in by native Israelite parents and raised as though he were a natural son or daughter of a family—the considerable majority of sojourners were likely to have entered into the community as either adolescents or grown adults. These were not people who were raised within the community of Israel for their maturing years, they were widely not exposed to Moses’ Teaching to the same degree as natives, and those of all positions can recognize a higher priority placed on certain instructions to be kept by the gerim. Adherence to such instructions, though, would naturally and by necessity lead to the keeping of more instructions.

There is no implication when reading the Pentateuch, that the ger’s adherence to the Torah was to begin and end with only some specific instructions. Perhaps one of the most important Torah passages that surrounds the whole “one law” debate is Numbers 15:29: “You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.” The same animal sacrifice, that was to be offered for the unintentional sin of the native Israelite, was also to be offered for the intentional sin of the sojourner (Numbers 15:24-28). This specifically concerned, “all that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations.” While the grace of God in a sacrifice was there to cover the sins and omissions of those within the community—recognizing that the same sacrifice was present for the native and the sojourner alike, both native and sojourner would have to be committed to following all the commandments of Moses’ Teaching that applied to the general population, so as to not unnecessarily break them again. The need, to learn more and more, was hardly an admonition that could be turned down.

The main advantage that the native would have had over the sojourner, of course, would be precisely in being a native who had been presumably raised in an environment of Torah adherence his entire life. The main disadvantage, of a sojourner within Ancient Israel, would be in how it would take time to learn many of the minor commandments that did not at all merit a capital penalty, but still needed to be understood and honored. Thankfully, the same sacrifice for inadvertent or unintentional violations was uniform for both groups.

It is true that in the post-resurrection era, those non-Jewish Believers who are in Messiah Yeshua, are not at all to be regarded as any kind of sojourner—but instead, now as fellow citizens of the polity of Israel along with their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19), and surely a beneficiary of the supernatural compulsion of the Holy Spirit in Torah keeping as promised by the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; cf. Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17). A great many non-Jewish Believers make up the Messianic movement, and are appreciating the value of Moses’ Teaching more and more. Yet, a great many more non-Jewish Believers make up a Christian Church that widely sees itself as being separate from Israel. Thankfully, whoever we are, a much bigger sacrifice—that of the Lord Yeshua Himself—has absorbed all of our collective, human violation of the Torah (Colossians 2:14).

While there are many Christians, and many Jews for that matter, who break the commandments of the Law of Moses, some knowingly and some unknowingly—Romans 5:20 explains how, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Such grace is definitively found in the permanent atonement and forgiveness available in the death and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. While each person who has placed trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should be instructed by His Torah—there is a covering for transgression in the work of His Son, that those of Ancient Israel, whether native or sojourner, did not have. When today’s Messianic movement tries to evaluate how much or how little of the Torah is relevant for God’s people, we need not forget the importance of living in a post-resurrection era. We need only to go to the Father, in the name of His Son, to receive forgiveness for any of our violations of His Instruction.

I have been told that any “One Law” position, which holds that both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers should keep the Torah, is replacement theology. I have been accused that I am canceling out the distinctiveness of the Jewish people.

Aside from the necessary exegetical issues surrounding the relevant Torah passages that use terminology such as “one law,” “one statute,” etc. (Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 7:7; 24:22; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16, 29-30), there are various factors surrounding the implementation of a conviction that Jewish and non-Jewish Believers are to both keep the same basic Torah instruction. Within various quarters of Messianic Judaism, it has become quite frequent to see accusations made by Messianic Jews, toward non-Jewish Messianics who are Torah observant, that they are practicing replacement theology. By keeping the Sabbath, appointed times, or eating kosher, some Messianic Jews believe that non-Jewish Messianics are robbing them of their identity. Contrary to this, these non-Jewish Messianics are of the conviction that they are living in obedience to the Scriptures, and demonstrating their faith the way that Yeshua and His Disciples would have lived. Is there a fair solution to any of this? Our ministry has certainly discussed many of the aspects that have gone into these questions.

What is replacement theology, also commonly called supersessionism? The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms provides this definition:

“The belief that on the basis of the coming of Jesus the Messiah (Christ), the Christian church has superseded Israel as the chosen, covenant people of God.”[i]

Non-Jewish Messianic Believers do not believe that “the Church” has replaced Israel. They might believe that with the arrival of the Messiah, some new dynamics regarding the people of God are in play, and that the Israel that Yeshua came to rebuild/restore (Matthew 16:18; cf. Jeremiah 33:7; 31:4; Psalm 88:5)[j] goes beyond the Jewish people in incorporating a mass from the nations (cf. John 10:16)—an enlarged Kingdom of Israel, if you will. But, the idea that the Tanach promises made to Ancient Israel, and evidenced throughout history—including the reestablishment of the State of Israel in 1948—are somehow invalid, is not a position that you will at all find. It has become quite common in parts of Messianic Judaism, though, that if a non-Jewish Believer considers himself or herself a part of the community of Israel in common cause with the Jewish people, that this negates the importance of Jewish identity. Does it?

No Bible reader can deny that the Jewish people have a special and valued role to play within God’s salvation history plan. Yeshua the Messiah Himself said, “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). The Apostle Paul lauds in Romans 3:1-2, “what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” In Romans 9:4 he further says that his fellow Jewish brethren “are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises.” The Jewish people do have an irrevocable calling (Romans 11:29), and as Paul had to tell a group of confused, non-Jewish Roman Believers: “do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you” (Romans 11:18). There was a significant reliance for such people on how the Messiah came forth from the Jewish people, and the promises of a Deliverer to come as originally given to Ancient Israel.

Is keeping the Torah to be the special mark of identity for the Jewish person? Many of today’s Messianic Jews think that Torah keeping is precisely this, and that who they are is diminished if non-Jewish Believers keep the Torah too. Paul very well might counter this in Romans 2:28-29, when he emphasizes the following to the Jewish Believers in Rome:

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

The true Jewish person in the end is one who can receive great praise and accolades from God, and not mortals. Obedience to Him plays a role in such honor, but more so would be how His character and goodness are to be represented to the world in someone’s attitude. It may be true that Jewish Believers, who know without any doubt that their ancestors were at Mount Sinai, may be more naturally inclined to follow the Torah, and probably face fewer difficulties to overcome than others in being instructed by it—but that does not mean that others are not similarly expected to heed it. Jewish people can legitimately claim the revelation of Sinai as a part of their ethnic, cultural, and spiritual heritage—the first two of these should not be diminished by those from the nations, who follow after Israel’s God, and are to some extent treat Israel’s story as their, at least, spiritual story (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1).

While the Bible bids all Messiah followers to respect and honor the Jewish people, and certainly how in the First Century the Messiah Yeshua came forth from the Jewish nation, and how from the Jewish Apostles the good news would be proclaimed to the whole world—the Scriptures likewise communicate that all of those in Messiah are integrated into the community of Israel. Prior to their salvation, Paul says that the non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor were “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Yeshua you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah” (Ephesians 2:12-13). They are “no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household…[meaning] to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel” (Ephesians 2:19; 3:6).

Some Messianic Jews might want to dispute these claims, by saying that non-Jewish Believers being a part of the Commonwealth of Israel is like a British Commonwealth of Nations model—meaning that Yeshua reigns over a commonwealth composed of the Jewish people/Messianic Jews and the Christian Church, as two separate sub-peoples but related entities. This view, while popular in many sectors of Messianic Judaism, does not at all fit the lexical definitions of politeia,[k] and is not borne out with either classical or Biblical usage of the term.[l]

Ultimately, each person within the Messianic movement has to take to serious heart the prayer that Yeshua issued to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, saying, “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:22-23). The oneness, that Yeshua prayed that His followers have, is similar to the oneness that He—as God—had with the Father. This is hardly a oneness with distinctions and differences rigidly emphasized. In fact, it is a oneness that is humanly impossible to fully reach. But, it is something that born again Believers should at least strive to reach, in some capacity.

If Jewish and non-Jewish Believers have been saved the same way (Acts 15:8-9), the Holy Spirit is to be poured out upon all people (Joel 2:28), and this same Holy Spirit is to give redeemed people new hearts onto which God’s commandments can be supernaturally transcribed (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17)—this should not be taken as a nullification of the distinctiveness of the Jewish people. On the contrary, the power of the New Covenant to change lives and to transcribe the Torah onto transformed hearts, should be taken as a sign of the universal availability of salvation and God’s Spirit for all people on Earth.

Are Jewish Believers not distinct within the Body of Messiah? There are multitudes of things in Jewish tradition, culture, religious philosophy, contributions to science and industry, and achievements throughout human history—and Jewish innovation in general—which the Body of Messiah at large recognizes as being unique and very special. The Jewish people surely deserve great honor and respect within the people of God! It should be obvious to any person in the Messianic movement that the Jewish people have many distinct and important things to contribute to the vitality of the faith community, that should not be taken for granted. And, to be certainly added to the list is how the heritage of the Torah and Tanach is not only a part of the Jewish people’s spiritual heritage—but their ethnic and cultural heritage as well. Non-Jewish Believers, who believe themselves to be a part of the community of Israel via faith in Israel’s Messiah, cannot readily claim these latter two.

Problems often ensue when a non-Jewish Messianic Believer somehow feels unwelcome in a certain assembly of Messianic Jews, and feels pressured to leave for some reason(s). In some cases, he or she may have been issued some accusation of replacement theology or supersessionism, because the non-Jewish Believer was Torah obedient and was trying to live a more holy life, than his or her previous Christian experience. Regardless of what the Messianic Jews in the congregation may or may not have done, the non-Jewish Believer has the significant responsibility to forgive, forget, and be guarded against any kind of resentment or bitterness.

Is it possible to stop some of the negativity witnessed, when various Messianic Jews feel “replaced” by non-Jewish Messianics being Torah obedient too? This will be a difficult issue to tackle in some places, some of it being theological in terms of approaches to verses like Galatians 5:2-3, but some of it will also be social and psychological.

One of the definite features that is lacking in too much of today’s broad Messianic community—across the spectrum—is that too few fail to follow an ethic of mutual submission in the assembly. Such an ideology is based around concepts such as:

•      “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3-4).

•      “[B]e subject to one another in the fear of Messiah” (Ephesians 5:21).

•      “[L]ove one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor” (Romans 12:10, NRSV).

This model, of the people of God working together, is not one commonly seen in much of today’s Messianic movement. An egalitarian ideology of mutual submission, where all Believers are equal in Messiah, and are to all be contributing their unique gifts, talents, and skills for the betterment of all (cf. Romans 12:4-13; Ephesians 4:11-13), is widely not present. If a mutual submission ideology were present, then it would mean that the best that both Judaism and Christianity offer, should be employed together in a Messianic community that is committed to achieving the mission of God for His people.

What is often seen instead, is too much of a top-down complimentarian approach, with one group being superior to another, often in a very rigid hierarchy.[m] This can be responsible for creating a culture of rivalry, suspicion, and mistrust. No one denies that distinctions among people naturally exist, but such distinctions are to be a means by which all can be served. Are today’s Messianic Believers going to let our distinctions be a means by which people are divided, or will they be turned into tools and a means by which the Body of Messiah is edified and enriched? For a variety of complex reasons, the former seems to be what is more often witnessed in today’s Messianic movement, even in much of the One Law sub-movement.

Many of the issues regarding the Torah observance of non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement surrounds what is actually Biblical to the Torah, what is traditional to Judaism, and what is cultural to Jewish people—which does need to be sorted through much better than it has. Many of the Messianic Jews who feel “replaced” by non-Jewish Believers keeping the Torah, are often not disturbed by a non-Jew remembering Shabbat or keeping a nominal level of kosher, but instead disturbed by a non-Jew being more culturally Jewish than most Messianic Jews are willing to be. Coming to a fair place, on these sorts of issues, can only be evaluated on a person-by-person or family-by-family basis. But, Messianic non-Jews, who are Torah obedient via conviction from the Bible, need not think that Jewish tradition and culture should dominate every area of their lives. For, it is most often among the non-Jewish Messianic Believer who tends to “out-Jew the Jew,” where the accusations of replacement theology and supersessionism really do tend to run rampant.

There are many Messianic non-Jewish Believers, who are not trying to “replace” the Jewish people or Messianic Jews in being Torah obedient. Yet in some Messianic Jewish quarters, the ramifications of prophecies such as Micah 4:1-3 or Isaiah 2:2-4, about the nations coming to Zion to be taught God’s Law, are either downplayed or just outright ignored. It is entirely possible, that in a few Messianic Jewish quarters, one might even hear accusations of “replacement theology” when evangelical Christians simply want Believers to keep the Ten Commandments.

It is easy to get upset and offended at the attitudes of some of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers, who do not want non-Jewish Believers to really take an interest in following God’s Torah. It is best, however, for those who disagree with such persons, to simply leave them alone. Those Messianic Jews, their congregations, and even their organizations, who believe that the Messianic movement is only supposed to stay constrained to Jewish Believers, will achieve some things for the Lord—but they will surely not achieve as much as they could. There are other Messianic Jews, though, who are open-minded and who recognize that there is something bigger going on with many non-Jewish Believers in their midst, embracing their Hebraic Roots in a very tangible way, and being gracious toward them as fellow brothers and sisters. They instinctively know that more is happening and that they need not be unwelcoming or disrespectful of anyone.

A ministry such as Outreach Israel and TNN Online does hold to a kind-of One Law position—but we do so with a distinct ethic of mutual submission in mind. This is an ideology which wants to see all of God’s people benefit from the richness of His Torah, but in a way where the Jewish people are properly honored, and where all Believers are encouraged to use their unique gifts, talents, and skills for the betterment of the Body of Messiah. Others who hold to a One Law position, via their actions, want to turn non-Jewish Believers into de-facto Jews—not necessarily by emphasizing obedience to Biblical commandments regarding the Sabbath or appointed times—but in how Jewish tradition and culture, much of which is extra-Biblical, should permeate every aspect of their lives. While Jewish tradition and culture do have their place within the Messianic movement, non-Jewish Believers should not dismiss the unique aspects and virtues of their own cultural heritage.

Making sure that Messianic Jews do not feel replaced when non-Jewish Believers join with them, in mixed assemblies of God’s people, is not impossible—but it does present many challenges. It may be that, in the end, only those with Holy Spirit-empowered innovation will be those who succeed. In too many sectors of our broad faith community, this has been notably lacking. How we form mixed assemblies, where the special and unique place of the Jewish people in history can be honored, but where others can surely be honored and feel like contributing members as well, is not going to be easy—but it is something surely worth fighting long and hard for!

I have encountered a Messianic Jewish teaching that states that only the Jewish people are obligated to keep Torah, because they are circumcised. Is this what Galatians 5:2-3 really communicates? I am confused.

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Messiah will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Galatians 5:2-3).

It is true that in various sectors of Messianic Judaism, particularly those which promote a bilateral ecclesiology of the Kingdom of God composing two sub-groups of elect, Israel and “the Church,” that it is believed that only Jewish people are really supposed to follow the Torah. Non-Jewish Believers can keep the Torah if they wish, but it is not required or really expected of them.[n] Galatians 5:2-3 is offered as a proof text in support of this position, as the non-Jewish Galatians who would be circumcised in the First Century, would apparently make themselves obligated, the same as any Jew, to keep the Torah.

Is this interpretation of Galatians 5:2-3, a viable one? According to one rather popular Messianic teacher, at least: “Galatians 5:3 is irrefutably simple to understand.” He goes on to conclude, “If the plain meaning of the text is true” then “every person who is not Jewish is not obligated to keep the whole Torah.”[o] When one encounters any remark or statement, by any Bible teacher, on any topic,[p] to the effect that something is “irrefutably simple,” “airtight,” “watertight,” or “fireproof”—be careful because this is a very good indication that there has not been enough detailed examination of the subject.[q] What is required, for adequately evaluating what Galatians 5:2-3 communicates, is not only placing these two verses within a wider scope of statements seen in Paul’s letter, but going into more detail from the Greek source text and adequately triangulating a variety of scholastic perspectives.

Is it possible that the Messianic Jewish view of only the Jewish people being “obligated” to keep the Torah, based on Galatians 5:2-3, has not probed the text enough? Galatians 5:2-3 are actually not easy verses to evaluate, partially because Paul says “I testify again…,” a clue that he could be repeating remarks previously made when he visited the Galatians in person (cf. Acts 13:13-14:28). In Galatians 5:2-3, we are certainly reading the Galatians’ mail, and are interjecting ourselves into an ancient problem.

Textually speaking from the English alone, the immediate cotext of Galatians 5:1, 4 gives us some important clues as to the setting Paul addresses, regarding why he is insistent that the non-Jewish Galatians do not go through circumcision:

“It was for freedom that Messiah set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Messiah will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Messiah, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”

Galatians 5:1, 4 indicates that the issue in view is the non-Jewish Galatians having been freed from slavery to sin, and by going through circumcision, they would be returning to a spiritual condition that they should have left behind in paganism (cf. Galatians 4:8).[r] While in other places in Galatians, it is easily discerned that the “justification” in view regards one’s identity as a member of God’s people (Galatians 2:15), the “justification” seen in Galatians 5:4 has to regard the Galatians’ salvation status as well. Those Galatians, who would go through circumcision, are to be considered as having fallen from grace.

One significant feature of the “circumcision” (Grk. verb peritemnō) referenced throughout much of Galatians—but most specifically here—is how those of both the male and female genders are in view. Galatians 5:3 says, panti anthrōpō peritemnomenō. While it may seem rather strange to us, this clause is best rendered with “every human being who receives circumcision,” as the generic anthrōpos for humankind is employed. Realizing that both the male and female genders are in view, the “circumcision” spoken of throughout much of Galatians has very little to do with a medical operation on the glans penis, but instead has to do with the ritual of an ancient proselyte to Judaism. “Circumcision” in Galatians may largely be considered a shorthand way of Paul saying: “become a Jewish proselyte/convert.” Becoming an ancient proselyte to Judaism involved circumcision, water immersion, and the presentation of an offering (b.Keritot 9a).[s] Females becoming Jewish proselytes partook of the latter two.

Interpreters of various positions on Galatians 5:1-4 should be able to recognize that the Apostle Paul is not criticizing circumcision as a medical practice here. What Paul is directly going after, though, is an inappropriate theology of circumcision present within much of First Century Judaism. Being ritually circumcised as a proselyte to Judaism, will not merit one a proper standing before the Creator God. Yet, the Judaizers/Influencers, who had been agitating the non-Jewish Galatians, did advocate that becoming a Jewish proselyte was necessary to be a genuine part of the people of God, and possess eternal salvation (cf. Acts 15:1).

A standard position that is seen of Galatians 5:2-3, only slightly modified by some leaders in today’s Messianic Jewish movement, is that the non-Jewish Galatians being circumcised would make them be obligated to keep the Torah. This is something witnessed in the views of Galatians commentators:

•      F.F. Bruce: “Circumcision as a minor surgical operation is neither here nor there, but circumcision voluntarily undertaken as a legal obligation carries with it a further obligation—nothing less than the obligation to keep the whole law. He who submits to circumcision as a legal requirement, necessary for salvation, accepts thereby the principle of salvation by law-keeping, and salvation by law-keeping implies salvation by keeping the whole law.”[t]

•      Richard N. Longenecker: “Paul wants to make it plain that with circumcision comes obligation ‘to obey the whole law.’”[u]

There are interpreters who hold the doing of the Torah in Galatians 5:3 as a matter of what identified ancient Jews,[v] and various others who will look at the doing of the Torah in Galatians 5:3 as a matter of the non-Jewish Galatians trying to earn their salvation. The correct interpretation of Galatians 5:3, regarding the matter of the Torah, has to weigh Paul’s rather severe warning of telling the non-Jewish Galatians that they will be cut off from grace (Galatians 5:4). The doing of the Torah in Galatians 5:3, as only some matter of obligated Jewish identity, does not at all serve as an adequate counterweight to being cut off from grace or salvation. A loss of God’s favor present in Yeshua’s sacrifice is in view.

Examining the statement, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law” (Galatians 5:3, RSV), there have been some key suggestions made that the language employed here might have to do with some kind of oath taking. Hans Dieter Betz observes, “The formula of oath seems to be in place because of the stubbornness of the Galatians who, in spite of what they have been told before, remain naive with regard to the implications of becoming circumcised.”[w] Ben Witherington III also indicates how “A close examination of Ancient Near East covenanting procedures, including those followed by the Israelites, shows that the sign of a covenant was often connected with the oath curse that went with the covenant, in fact symbolized the curses that applied if one didn’t obey the covenant stipulations.”[x] Both Betz and Witherington have interjected some thoughts into what Galatians 5:3 may certainly involve, which can better aid us in understanding why the non-Jewish Galatians being circumcised as proselytes, would be tantamount to them being cut off from God’s grace in Yeshua.

Mark Nanos makes note of “a custom practiced in rabbinic Judaism, wherein the proselyte candidate must declare awareness of the afflictions suffered by Israelites and the responsibility to uphold Torah upon completion of the rite,”[y] referring to the procedure in the Talmud:

“Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority: A person who comes to convert at this time— they say to him, ‘How come you have come to convert? Don’t you know that at this time the Israelites are forsaken and harassed, despised, baited, and afflictions come upon them?’ If he said, ‘I know full well, and I am not worthy [of sharing their suffering],’ they accept him forthwith. And they inform him about some of the lesser religious duties and some of the weightier religious duties. He is informed about the sin of neglecting the religious duties involving gleanings, forgotten sheaf, corner of the field, and poorman’s tithe. They further inform him about the penalty for not keeping the commandments. They say to him, ‘You should know that before you came to this lot, if you ate forbidden fat, you would not be penalized by extirpation. If you violated the Sabbath, you would not be put to death through stoning. But now if you eat forbidden fat, you are punished with extirpation. If you violate the Sabbath, you are punished by stoning.’ And just as they inform him about the penalties for violating religious duties, so they inform him about the rewards for doing them. They say to him, ‘You should know that the world to come is prepared only for the righteous, and Israel at this time is unable to bear either too much prosperity or too much penalty.’ They do not press him too hard, and they do not impose too many details on him. If he accepted all this, they circumcise him immediately. If any shreds that render the circumcision invalid remain, they do it a second time. Once he has healed, they immerse him right away. And two disciples of sages supervise the process” (b.Yevamot 47a-b).[z]

Here, it cannot go overlooked how the proselyte candidate formally joining the Jewish community would have to acknowledge penalties for Torah breaking to be incurred.

To this, we have to consider how significantly possible it is that Galatians 5:3 includes an echo of an oath commitment that proselytes to Judaism would have been forced to take, in order for them to be steadfastly committed to keeping the whole Law. This certainly does have a precedent, as the returned Jewish exiles from Babylon made a public commitment to not only keep the Torah, but actually be cursed, if they were ever found disobeying any of its instructions:

“Now the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the temple servants and all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the law of God, their wives, their sons and their daughters, all those who had knowledge and understanding, are joining with their kinsmen, their nobles, and are taking on themselves a curse and an oath to walk in God's law, which was given through Moses, God's servant, and to keep and to observe all the commandments of GOD our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes” (Nehemiah 10:28-29).

For the First Century Jewish Synagogue, it is not difficult at all to envision various religious authorities requiring proselytes to make a vow to keep the whole Torah, and in the process for such proselytes to acknowledge curses crashing down upon them for breaking it in any way. Given the significance that many of today’s Pauline scholars have given to Paul’s usage of “works of law” in Galatians (2:16 [3x]; 3:2, 5, 10) and the Qumran document 4QMMT,[aa] it should not be surprising that the Qumran community required its members to make an oath to keep the Torah of Moses, and in the process be reminded that God’s wrath would come down upon any of those who would break it:

“These are the regulations that govern when they are gathered together as a community. Every initiant into the society of the Yahad is to enter the Covenant in full view of all the volunteers. He shall take upon himself a binding oath to return to the Law of Moses (according to all that He commanded) with all his heart and with all his mind, to all that has been revealed from it to the Sons of Zadok—priests and preservers of the covenant, seekers of His will—and the majority of the men of their Covenant (that is, those who have jointly volunteered for His truth and to live by what pleases Him). Each one who thus enters the Covenant by oath is to separate himself from all of the perverse men, those who walk in the wicked way, for such are not reckoned a part of His Covenant. They ‘have not sought Him nor inquired of His statutes’ (Zeph. 1:6) so as to discover the hidden laws in which they err to their shame. Even the revealed laws they knowingly transgress, thus stirring God’s judgmental wrath and full vengeance: the curses of the Mosaic Covenant. He will bring against them weighty judgments, eternal destruction with none spared” (1QS 5.7-13).[bb]

It is entirely reasonable to propose that Galatians 5:3 includes an embedded reference to some kind of oath for ancient Jewish proselytes to keep “the whole Law” (holon ton nomon).[cc] The proselyte procedures the non-Jewish Galatians would go through, would be administered by non-Messianic authorities, people who did not believe in Yeshua and would not take into consideration the new status of human beings in Him (Galatians 3:28). (The Influencers’ error themselves, as addressed throughout the Epistle to the Galatians, was in making ritual proselyte circumcision an issue for entry into God’s people, and not faith in the Messiah and His accomplishments.) And in the case of whatever sect of ancient Judaism may have been administrating the proselyte circumcision procedure, Betz notes that to the Qumran community “keeping the whole Torah meant for them additional requirements, which made their observance more radical than that of ordinary Jews.”[dd] More than just observing commandments of the Pentateuch proper, with “the whole Law,” could be intended.

While being ritually circumcised as a Jewish proselyte, and in the process making an oath to keep the whole Torah, could very well be what is more fully involved in Galatians 5:3—why would Paul be so strident to tell the non-Jewish Galatians: “you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4; cf. 2:21)? He could have just said something to the effect, “You are misguided” or “You are deceived” or “You have gone astray” here, because being circumcised is surely a Torah commandment—and one which Paul himself says later has value (cf. Romans 3:1-2).

An extremely important, albeit quite obvious component, to properly understanding Galatians 5:3, “he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (NASU), is actually reading what the Greek source text says: hoti opheiletēs estin holon ton nomon poiēsai. While most contemporary English translations have something along the lines of “under obligation” (NASU) or “obligated” (NIV/NRSV/ESV/HCSB), these renderings communicate the sense of a verb, when a noun is actually what appears in the source text. While Jews and Messianic Jews being “obligated to keep Torah,” has become a prolific sound byte in some quarters, based on Galatians 5:3—what if “under obligation” is not at all the best translation for what is witnessed in the Greek source text? Not enough interpreters have adequately examined what the Greek actually says.

The Greek noun opheiletēs, in its most basic sense, means “a debtor” (LS).[ee] While it can mean “one who is under obligation in a moral or social sense,” it can also mean “one who is in debt in a monetary sense,” as well as “one who is guilty of a misdeed, one who is culpable, at fault,” “in relation to God, sinner” (BDAG).[ff] The term opheiletēs appears in Matthew 6:12, where Yeshua directs His disciples to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” In the view of TDNT, “those who accept circumcision are debtors to the whole law,”[gg] and no one can deny how in the KJV/NKJV, opheiletēs is translated with “debtor”: “that he is a debtor to do/keep the whole law.”[hh] (The Brown and Comfort interlinear has rendered hoti opheiletēs estin holon ton nomon poiēsai as “that he is~a debtor whole the law to do.”)[ii]

The proper rendering of opheiletēs as “debtor” makes good sense, in light of the inference that the non-Jewish Galatians who are circumcised as proselytes will fall from grace. Their motives are clear: they “are seeking to be justified by law [lit. ‘in law’; en nomō]” (Galatians 5:4). Does this mean that these people will find themselves no longer seeking justification in the Messiah and what He has accomplished? It has to mean this, in order for their circumcision to merit their being cut off from God’s grace in Yeshua. If membership in God’s people via ritual proselyte circumcision were only in view in Galatians 5:2-3, then one would expect the Galatians being accused of only being misguided or deceived. Most critical to be recognized, is how the condition of a “debtor” in the Apostolic Scriptures, is often that of a person who lives in an unredeemed condition of sin and guilt. James D.G. Dunn indicates for readers, “The play on words between verses 2 and 3 should be noted: Christ will not benefit them (ōphelēsei), but, instead, they will be in debt (opheiletēs) to the law.”[jj] Inevitably in seeking to be justified via their Torah observance, the Galatians will find themselves breaking it, and will subsequently be debtors who have fallen from the grace they once had in Yeshua (cf. Galatians 6:13 on the behavior of the Judaizers/Influencers).

A picture of Galatians 5:2-3 should be forming, which has: adequately taken into consideration First Century Jewish background, the Greek source text, and the reality that the non-Jewish Galatians who become ritually circumcised as proselytes will be cut off from God’s grace in Yeshua. Consider this interpretation of Galatians 5:2-3:

1.

The “circumcision” in view has been required by the Judaizers/Influencers in order for the Galatians to be “really” reckoned as members of God’s people.

2.  Paul says that if the Galatians go through with this, then they will be regarded as debtors to keep the whole Torah.

3.  Being a debtor to the Torah, could very well have involved some kind of a loyalty oath that the proselyte would have to exclaim, something with precedents witnessed in Jewish history, and with it severe penalties acknowledged to be incurred for Torah-breaking. One who is found to break the Torah then (cf. James 2:10), as a debtor, would call God’s curses and wrath down.

4.  Why would being regarded as a “debtor to do the Torah,” merit being cut off from God’s grace in Yeshua? Because in Yeshua, born again Believers are to no longer be regarded as such debtors. He has freed all redeemed men and women from the curse of the Torah declared upon Torah-breakers (Galatians 3:13). To regard oneself as some kind of “debtor to do the Torah,” and if found breaking the Torah incur its curse, would be tantamount to the Galatians saying that Yeshua had not really broken the curse of Torah-breaking via His salvation.

Galatians 5:2-3 are loaded First Century words, which were delivered by the Apostle Paul to severely dissuade the non-Jewish Galatians from becoming ritual proselytes to Judaism. The reason he says “You have been severed from Messiah, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4), is because Paul knows that in becoming proselytes, they will make themselves into debtors to keep the Torah. In going through the proselyte procedure (cf. Galatians 3:10), they will have most likely declared that the curses of the Torah come down upon them if they ever break it—which would run contrary to Yeshua’s sacrifice having canceled the Torah’s curse (Galatians 3:13).[kk] The spiritual center of who these people are will become focused on justification via the Torah—not Yeshua the Messiah and a steadfast reliance on what He has accomplished. In going through the proselyte procedure, the non-Jewish Galatians will accept a premise of salvation-by-ethnicity (m.Sanhedrin 10:1), and all of the requirements demanded by a non-Messianic Jewish community. They will make themselves indebted to keep the whole Torah, and it is inevitable that they will each find themselves in violation to the Torah—and because they have accepted a premise of justification via the Torah, Yeshua’s salvation will not be there to help them.

No one, however—including a Jewish Believer—is to be regarded as a “debtor to do the Torah,” because as Paul had said earlier to those in Galatia, “Through [the Messiah] everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39, NIV).[ll]

It should be obvious that the Messianic Jewish idea one may hear of Jews and Messianic Jews being “obligated” to keep the Torah, which is likely to claim Galatians 5:2-3 as support, has not investigated the original context and setting of these verses thoroughly enough. If as proposed, “debtor” is the correct rendering of opheiletēs, and this depicts a condition of one being a sinner without regeneration via the gospel—then it is obvious that there were some complicated spiritual dynamics in play in Galatia. Paul actually went to the point of telling the non-Jews being convinced that they had to be circumcised, that they would make themselves be in slavery and consequently be cut off from Yeshua. These people were in serious danger of regressing to a Messiah-less condition.

While historically, verses like Galatians 5:1-4 have been interpreted as the Apostle Paul speaking against the continued validity of the Torah for the post-resurrection era, the targeted issue is actually making sure that one is not “a debtor to do the Law.” While the Epistle to the Galatians is clear that God’s Torah is not to be regarded as a means of justification, we can be agreed that all born again Believers must be following ton nomon tou Christou, “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), which the CJB rightly extrapolates to be “the Torah's true meaning, which the Messiah upholds.” This is to be focused around Yeshua’s teaching on Moses’ Teaching, principally found in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chs. 5-7). Yeshua the Messiah came to fulfill the Torah, He directed His followers to keep it (Matthew 5:17-19), and Paul says in Galatians that we are to fulfill the Torah with love for neighbor being paramount (Galatians 5:14; cf. Leviticus 19:18).

While there has been a significantly polarized debate in various sectors of the Messianic movement, as to whether or not non-Jewish Believers are “obligated to keep Torah,” Romans 8:12-13 guides us in another direction: “brethren, we are debtors [opheiletia], not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (RSV). Born again Believers, regenerated by the Spirit, are not to be regarded as “debtors to keep the whole Torah,” so that they can try to earn their salvation as a legalistic work of the flesh (cf. Galatians 3:3). They are instead “debtors” to the grand work of Yeshua the Messiah (Romans 8:1-3), which carries with it no condemnation and the covering of His grace. Being in Yeshua, regenerated men and women are to have the clear presence of the Holy Spirit within them, but as “debtors” to the Lord and His work, they have no debt of sin from Torah-breaking that needs to be paid any longer.

Those in Messiah are all certainly expected to obey Moses’ Teaching, but the responsibility of such obedience is with the definite aid of the Spirit infilling their hearts and minds, and is surely guided by the impetus of love.[mm] Those who are in Messiah, and have been spiritually regenerated, are to be regarded as people of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17) He has inaugurated (Luke 22:20). This includes the promise not only of a permanent atonement for sin and forgiveness—releasing redeemed people from being “debtors to do the whole Torah”—but in the place of being a debtor, the New Covenant promises to provide a definite supernatural compulsion to obey, which only being “a debtor to do the whole Torah” (cf. Galatians 5:3) would surely not bring. As Romans 8:1-4 says,

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

Those, who walk in the Spirit, should naturally be those who keep God’s Torah. Rather than being in slavery (Galatians 5:1), one should consider how James the Just says, “But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:25). Following the Torah, as one who has been freed from sin in the Messiah Yeshua, is quite different than following the Torah as one who is to be regarded as a debtor.

Can Galatians 5:2-3 be used to imply that within the Messianic movement today, only Messianic Jews have a real requirement incumbent upon them to keep the Torah, and non-Jewish Believers do not? No one should argue against how Messianic Jews might feel more comfortable and have fewer obstacles, keeping many parts of the Torah (i.e., those areas that much of Protestantism has classified as the so-called “ceremonial law”), given the fact that it is a definite component of not only their spiritual heritage, but their ethnic heritage. The real stakes, though, about following the Torah—and the deplorable complimentarian trend witnessed in various Messianic sectors, on distinctions to be rigidly maintained (and enforced) among God’s people—have a great deal to do with the universal availability of all people on Earth to receive God’s Spirit.

If all of the redeemed in Yeshua are to receive salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit, then an obedience to the commandments of the Torah, compelled on by the Spirit, should naturally follow. (Much of this obviously has to occur and be facilitated within the right, local community of Believers—which in some places may be [significantly] lacking.) Yet, with some Messianic Jews claiming that non-Jewish Believers should really not be keeping the Torah, this could be taken as a nullification of the Lord’s decree, “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh [kol-basar]” (Joel 2:28, RSV). Is the Holy Spirit supposed to write God’s commandments on only some of His people, or all of His people? The answers to this question, in the short term, unfortunately, are likely to divide more and more teachers and leaders, than bring them closer together.

What am I to make of Isaiah 24:5? Are Gentiles responsible for violating the Mosaic covenant every bit as much as the Jews? Or, does Isaiah 24:5 only speak of the Noahdic covenant?

“Behold, the LORD lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants. And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the debtor. The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the LORD has spoken this word. The earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers, the exalted of the people of the earth fade away. The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left” (Isaiah 24:1-6).

The content of Isaiah ch. 24, describing God’s inevitable judgment on the world, is something that has probably been too widely overlooked in regard to understanding salvation, and what only the work of the Messiah can redeem people from. That God will issue severe desolation and calamity upon unrighteous sinners can be easily detected by a survey of Isaiah 24. That this chapter depicts the world at large in a condition of rebellion and corruption against the Creator, is also easily detected.

There should be no disagreement from an historical reading of Scripture, that Israel proper has been found in violation of the Mosaic covenant, and this is the precise reason why the New Covenant providing permanent atonement for sin and forgiveness would have to be inaugurated (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27).[nn] But what about the nations at large? Are we to assume that those of the world at large perhaps total pagans, are to be regarded as breakers of the Mosaic covenant as well? Are they to all be viewed as though they were gerim or sojourners who would enter into the community of Ancient Israel, and whose overall adherence to the Torah was widely indistinguishable from the native?[oo] Or, are the nations of the world at large, just held accountable for a small series of moral and ethical principles, per the so-called Noahide laws of Judaism?[pp]

The assertion of Isaiah 24:5 is, ki-avru torot chalfu choq hei’peiru b’rit olam, “because they have transgressed the Torot, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Jerusalem Bible-Koren). Much understandably comes down to how a reader approaches the presence of torot or “laws,”[qq] and b’rit olam or “eternal/everlasting covenant.” The violation of these Divine institutions is something that ha’eretz or “the earth” is responsible for, making it a problem for all of humanity.[rr]

There are interpreters of Isaiah 24:5 who view b’rit olam, as only being in regard to the covenant God made with Noah in Genesis 9:16,[ss] and this problem would not constitute the nations at large being held liable for breaking any successive covenants that followed. A Jewish commentator like I.W. Slotki notes some of the options that sit before the reader on how to approach b’rit olam:

“The Torah of Moses was given at Sinai between God and Israel (Rashi). Others refer the phrase to the Noachide covenant made between God and the human race after the flood (Gen. ix. 16). [According to] this covenant every member of the human race is subject to certain moral laws, one of which is the prohibition of murder (Gen. ix. 5f) (Abarbanel).”[tt]

The presence of torot or laws being mentioned does certainly give the interpreter of Isaiah 24:5 some options, which would make limiting this verse’s content to the Noahdic covenant more than a bit confining. At the very least, a Christian commentator like John N. Oswalt directs how the laws in view include principles which are included in the Torah of Moses, but does draw the conclusion how the general covenant in view is likely the Noahdic covenant:

“Isaiah is thus using law here just as Paul uses it in Rom. 1-3. It is not so much the revealed law of the Jews, although the principles are the same. Rather, it is the fundamental principles of human behavior that are as accessible, and as incumbent, as the elementary principles of physics. Whether or not persons recognize the principles, living in any other way than in accord with them must ultimately destroy us, as the history of numberless fallen civilizations ought to teach us. Thus while the eternal covenant may have specific reference to the Noachic covenant in Gen. 9:1-17 with its prohibition of bloodshed, its broader reference is to the implicit covenant between Creator and creature, in which the Creator promises abundant life in return for the creature’s living according to the norms laid down at Creation.”[uu]

The point made by Oswalt is that the b’rit olam or “eternal covenant” violated by the world at large, should not be thought in specific terms to just be the Noahdic covenant. More is intended by Isaiah 24:5. Gene M. Tucker has to, although somewhat reluctantly, observe,

“Which covenant does the author have in view? The obvious answer is the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:1-17), since it is called ‘an everlasting covenant’ and extends to all people and creatures of the earth. On the other hand, the reference to laws and statutes leaves open the possibility that this is the Sinai covenant (Exod 19-Num 9).”[vv]

J.C. Halton, even while choosing to view torah in the Book of Isaiah as largely pertaining to the Prophet’s own teaching and declarations, still has to detail the following in his entry for “Law” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets:

“While the book of Isaiah, along with most other OT texts, presents tôrâ as a divine gift to Israel, it does not picture tôrâ as Israel’s exclusive possession. Instead, one way in which Yahweh intended for the knowledge of God’s upright character (ṣedeq) to spread was by expanding and making more prominent tôrâ among the nations.”[ww]

There are, to be sure, theologians and commentators, who see b’rit olam or “eternal/everlasting covenant” in Isaiah 24:5 as being widely incorporative of much more than the Noahdic covenant. Geoffrey W. Grogan is one who points out that pagans, even without God, should still be regarded as though they were at least violators of the moral statutes stated within Moses’ Teaching:

“Modern society is becoming more concerned about the physical pollution of our environment. Isaiah here dealt with the even more tragic and urgent matter of moral pollution, which is as widespread and serious today as it was in the eighth century B.C. The language of v.5 might seem, on the face of it, to be especially appropriate to Israel, because of her possession of the Mosaic Law; but the content here makes it plan that the whole world is in view. Many commentators....see a reference to the Noachian covenant, especially in the phrase ‘the everlasting covenant,’ which also occurs in Genesis 9:16. It is possible too that the prophet had Genesis 3 in mind, particularly in view of his reference to the curse in v.6. The world as a whole did not possess the moral commandments of God in written form as in the Mosaic Law; but those laws nevertheless represent the will of God for mankind, and mankind is under judgment for their violation. The word ‘disobeyed’ implies at least some awareness of these moral requirements in the human conscience (cf. Roman 1:18-32; 2:11-16), thus an element of deliberateness in sin.”[xx]

Among commentators of the Book of Isaiah, the most wide-sweeping view of b’rit olam is probably found within the conservatively-acclaimed work The Prophecy of Isaiah by J.A. Motyer. He summarizes,

“The expression the everlasting covenant is used of the Noahic covenant (Gn. 9:16), the Lord’s covenant dispensation reaching back to Abraham (Ps. 105:10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic covenant (Lv. 24:8) and the Davidic covenant (2 Sa. 23:5) and its future Messianic counterpart (Is. 55:3; 61:8). While this whole passage is resonant with flood motifs, it would be mistaken to tie this covenant reference in any way exclusively to Noah, even though its ambience starts with him. Every covenant dispensation has its regulatory aspect, however undeveloped it may have been in comparison with the normative Mosaic system. This may be why Isaiah used the plural laws, so as to cover every period and aspect of covenant law-giving. Even Abraham, who lived [by] the broadest of divine precepts (Gn. 17:2), is said to have kept the Lord’s ‘laws’ (Gn. 26:5). In essence, the annulling of the covenant was the refusal to live in the fellowship in which God opened.”[yy]

Walter C. Kaiser might have the most all-inclusive view of both b’rit olam or “the eternal covenant,” as well as torot or “laws,” as he describes the following for Isaiah 24:5 in his book Preaching and Teaching the Last Things:

“[T]he word for ‘laws’ is the Hebrew word torot (the plural for the word torah), meaning not just the law of God, but also all his authoritative instructions....Notice that this indictment affects all the peoples of the earth. Yet some are hesitant to refer the ‘everlasting covenant’ to the ‘Abrahamic-Davidic covenant,’ but attempt to instead refer it back to the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16). To be sure, God did call the covenant he made with Noah an ‘everlasting’ covenant. Moreover, it is also true that this passage in Isaiah 24 does contain allusions to the flood of Noah. However, it is best to understand this ‘everlasting covenant’ as the one that reached back to Abraham (Gen. 17:7, 13, 19; Ps. 105:9-10; cf. 1 Chron. 16:15-18), David (2 Sam. 23:5), and forward to a future Messiah (Isa. 55:3). The ‘law’ God had given to David was a ‘law/charter for all humanity’ (2 Sam. 7:19, translation mine), not one effective only for Israel. For just as the Abrahamic covenant was to be the means of blessing all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3), so it is a universal offer here as well.”[zz]

While there will continue to be disagreements among theologians, commentators, and interpreters on how to properly approach Isaiah 24:5—“The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant”—one is on safe ground to conclude that not only is Israel proper held responsible by God for violating the Torah or Law of Moses, but so are the nations at large, even if the exact Torah obedience of the gerim or sojourners in Ancient Israel was not exactly the same as a native (i.e., the native who had a tribal inheritance in the Land of Israel). One of the specific indictments, after all, that the Apostle Paul will issue against the nations, is that they are “covenant-breakers” (Romans 1:31, American Standard Version).[aaa]

Some would claim, in contrast to Isaiah 24:5, that the nations at large should not be held responsible for violation of anything but the terms of the Noahdic covenant. Psalm 147:19-20, for example, says, “He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.” Is it not true that the Psalmist says of the nations, mishpatim bal-yeda’um, “they do not know his rules” (ESV) or “they do not know his laws” (NIV)?

The main point of Psalm 147:19-20 is to detail how the Torah or Instruction of God was specifically given to Israel, and how the nations of the world are largely ignorant of God’s commandments. It is true that the Scriptures bear forth the principle that specific knowledge of many commandments and ordinances is necessary, in order to be held specifically accountable for their violation (cf. Romans 5:13).[bbb] Yet at the same time, as God’s image bearers (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), each human being has moral and ethical principles impressed onto the conscience. Knowing this is important, because Paul used it as a frame of reference to criticize various Jewish Believers in Rome who may have boasted because of their circumcision, but who may also have been shown to be less-than-faithful Torah keepers, when pagans who lacked the Torah could actually keep its weighty principles via their conscience:

“[Y]ou, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For ‘THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU’ [Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:20], just as it is written. For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?” (Romans 2:21-27).

To a figure like James the Just, all it takes is violation of one single commandment of the Torah or the Law of Moses, to constitute a total violation of it. He says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’ [Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18], also said, ‘DO NOT COMMIT MURDER’ [Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17]. Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10-11). Here, the prohibitions against adultery and murder, from the Ten Commandments, are listed. These would surely constitute the sorts of principles imbued upon the human conscience by God as Creator. Violation of one of these commandments, either by a Jewish person who grew up in a Torah environment, or by a pagan from the nations, merits such a man or woman the status of: Law-breaker. Even without some specific knowledge of the Mosaic covenant, by violating its principles of conscience, one from the nations demonstrates the same base, fallenness and disregard for the Creator that a Jewish person who has specific knowledge of it likewise demonstrates when he or she breaks it.

There is a definite conflict of not only theology, but also spirituality, in the Messianic movement today, when various Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers might claim that the nations at large are not held responsible by God for breaking His Torah. A prophetic word like Isaiah 24:5 says something to the contrary: all of humanity is guilty before God’s Instruction. Thankfully, we can take an important cue from Romans 5:20: “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Even though the world at large stands condemned for violation of God’s Torah and His covenant, His grace has always been greater than His anger. “[S]o that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord” (Romans 5:21).

To claim that Yeshua the Messiah was sacrificed only for Israel proper’s violation of the Torah, and not for that of the nations as well, is not the perspective presented in Titus 2:14: “[Yeshua] gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” Yeshua redeeming people apo pasēs anomias or “from all lawlessness” (ESV), is something that involves both the Jewish people and those from the nations, as “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Likewise, all people who turn to Yeshua as Savior are beneficiaries of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:8-12), and with it the promise for God’s Instruction to be supernaturally transcribed onto the heart and mind.

NOTES

[a] Cf. the lexical entries in BDB, 158; HALOT, 1:201; CHALOT, pp 63-64.

[b] Jacob Milgrom, JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), pp 398-402.

[c] This is the perspective largely represented in a resource like Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs: Jews & Gentiles Together in the Family of God (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2003).

[d] D.I. Block, “Sojourner,” in ISBE, 4:562.

[e] John R. Spencer, “Sojourner,” in ABD, 6:104.

[f] R.J.D. Knauth, “Alien, Foreign Resident,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, 31.

[g] Ibid., pp 32-33.

[h] John E. Hartley, Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Vol 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 261 actually has, “that is lawful to eat.”

[i] Donald S. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 273.

An important, contemporary example of replacement theology, by a modern-day theologian, would be easily seen in Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010).

[j] Consult the article “When Did ‘the Church’ Begin?” by J.K. McKee.

[k] Cf. LS, 654; BDAG, 845.

[l] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Commonwealth of Israel.”

[m] An egalitarian approach is controversial, because it directly challenges concepts such as so-called “male headship” (itself based on a misunderstanding of the Greek kephalē in Ephesians 5:23), and advocates that in marriage husband and wife are to be co-leaders of the home, mutually submitted to one another as one.

Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Male Headship.”

[n] This is generally the position represented by Daniel Juster and Russ Resnick (2005). One Law Movements: A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations. Available online via <http://umjc.org>.

[o] D. Thomas Lancaster, The Holy Epistle to the Galatians: Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach (Marshfield, MO: First Fruits of Zion, 2011), pp 236, 237.

[p] There is no statement in Biblical Studies or theological examination that can be regarded as “irrefutably simple,” including “There is a God,” given the series of complex arguments against the existence of a Supreme Being. It may be said, though, that there are various statements which have been made by various Bible teachers or theologians, which are arrogantly overconfident, such as Lancaster’s remarks here, as well as associated statements made by those who would agree with him.

[q] Cf. Matthew 12:37.

[r] This begs a variety of questions regarding what the “days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10) were, which the Galatians were accused of keeping. They were tied “to the weak and worthless elemental things” (Galatians 4:9).

As the relatively new Wesley Study Bible notes indicate: “[Galatians 4:9-10] may refer to religious calendar observances that involve the movement of stars and planets, often believed in the ancient world to be controlled by spirits” (Joel B. Green, ed. [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009], 1428).

The issue of “days, and months, and seasons, and years” in Galatians 4:9 is less likely to do with Torah practices such as the Sabbath or Passover, and more to do with various ungodly rituals that the Judaizers/Influencers associated with them involving astrology and the occult. For a further discussion, consult the article “Does the New Testament Annul the Biblical Appointments?” by J.K. McKee.

[s] “Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only with circumcision and immersion and sprinkling of blood through the sacrifices, so they will enter the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood on the altar” (b.Keritot 9a; The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary).

For a further discussion, consult T.R. Schreiner, “Proselyte,” in ISBE, 3:1009-1010.

[t] F.F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 230.

[u] Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, Vol. 41 (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1990), 227.

[v] James D.G. Dunn, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 266.

[w] Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 259.

[x] Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 366.

[y] Mark D. Nanos, “A Jewish View,” in Michael F Bird, ed., Four Views on the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 181.

[z] The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary.

[aa] Consult the article “What Are ‘Works of the Law’?” by J.K. McKee.

[bb] Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 132.

[cc] This would be no different than suggesting how the statement “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21) widely regards a declaration of faith in Yeshua the Messiah as Lord (cf. Romans 10:9), when a man or woman who has received Him finally goes through with water immersion.

[dd] Betz, 260.

[ee] LS, 580.

[ff] BDAG, pp 742-743.

[gg] F. Hauck, “opheilétēs,” in TDNT, 748.

[hh] Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 430 renders Galatians 5:3 with: “he is indebted to keep the whole law.”

[ii] Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, trans., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 664.

[jj] Dunn, Galatians, 265.

Concurrent with this, the comments of John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 94 are actually quite astute and most useful to consider here:

“He who is a debtor to do the whole law will never escape death, but will always be held guilty. For no man will ever be found who satisfies the law. Such an obligation, therefore, means the man’s sure damnation.”

Similar remarks are seen by Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 605, who says, “The Law is a unit, and if a person puts himself under any part of it for justification, he is a ‘debtor’ (KJV) to the entire code with its requirements and its curse (cf. 3:10; James 2:10).” And Frank J. Matera, “Galatians,” in Walter J. Harrelson, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 2087, who asserts, “Those who accept circumcision must do all of the prescriptions of the Law, otherwise they will fall under its curse.”

[kk] The issue in Galatians 5:2-3 does not specifically pertain to the salvation status of Jewish Believers, who would not have gone through a ritual proselyte circumcision. However, it needs to be kept in mind that a Jewish non-Believer, like any other unredeemed member of the human race (cf. Isaiah 24:5), stands under the curse of the Torah.

Yet, other than just outright denying the Messiah, could a similar situation as is seen in Galatians 5:1-4, in falling from grace, ever occur to ancient Jewish Believers? Such could definitely be the case if various First Century Jewish Believers ever joined a sect like the Essenes, making oaths like those seen in 1QS 5.7-13 to do the whole Torah, and in the process claim curses which Yeshua was supposed to have broken over them via their acceptance of His atoning work.

[ll] Note the presence of the verb dikaioō, which the RSV and NASU render as “freed.”

[mm] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.

[nn] For a further discussion, consult the article “What is the New Covenant?” by J.K. McKee, appearing in his book The New Testament Validates Torah.

[oo] For a further evaluation, consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website, “Torah Keeping for the Gerim/Sojourners in Ancient Israel.”

[pp] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Noahide Laws.”

[qq] The Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 24:5 has the singular ton nomon or “the law.”

[rr] Among some Jewish interpreters, it is noted that “The earth could also be translated as ‘the land’ (i.e., the land of Israel), in which case this section would refer to the Israelites and Judeans, not all humanity. In that case, the ancient covenant...refers to the laws given to Israel through Moses” (Benjamin D. Sommer, The Jewish Study Bible, 829).

[ss] Barry G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 106; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 179.

[tt] I.W. Slotki, Soncino Books of the Bible: Isaiah (London: Soncino Press, 1983), 111.

[uu] John N. Oswalt, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 446.

[vv] Gene M. Tucker, “The Book of Isaiah 1-39,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 211.

[ww] J.C. Halton, “Law,” in Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 495.

[xx] Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in Frank E. Gaebelein., ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 6:152.

[yy] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 199.

[zz] Walter C. Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching the Last Things: Old Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 149.

[aaa] Grk. asunthetos; “bound by no covenant, faithless” (LS, 127); “pert. to such as renege on their word, faithless. The noun [sunthēkē] refers to a formal agreement or compact; an [asunthetos] pers. does not keep an agreement” (BDAG, 146); “break their promises” (NLT).

Asunthetos is more often rendered as something like “untrustworthy” (NASU).

[bbb] Consult some of the thoughts in Chapter 24 of Torah In the Balance, Volume I by J.K. McKee.

FAQs related to The Significance of the Messiah Event

I really do not get the “Messianic movement.” Jesus said that He came to bring us all new wine, and told us that you can’t put new wine in old wineskins. The old way of Judaism has been replaced by the new way of Christianity.

There should be absolutely no doubting the fact that the terminology “new wine in new wineskins,” while derived from specific places in the Gospels, has taken on a life of its own in contemporary Christianity—particularly, charismatic Christianity. It is not uncommon to hear statements made by charismatic Believers, to the effect that we need to “drink the new wine of the Holy Spirit,” even though such a remark is not to be found anywhere in Scripture. On the contrary, Ephesians 5:18 communicates, “do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.” Recognizing that “new wine in new wineskins” is definitely taken from Yeshua’s teachings, it is important for us as Bible readers to evaluate the context where this appears, so we can derive an appropriate interpretation and application.

Statements made by Yeshua about “new wine in new wineskins,” to be necessarily contrasted to “old wine in old wineskins,” appears in all three Synoptic Gospels:

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mark 2:21-22).

“But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (Matthew 9:16-17).

“And He was also telling them a parable: ‘No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, “The old is good enough”’” (Luke 5:36-39).

All readers of Mark 2:21-22; Matthew 9:16-17; and Luke 5:36-39 should be agreed that the analogy is made about something old being unable to be repaired. It does not do any good to try to patch up an old garment that has been torn, with a new patch, as a greater tear will take place. More importantly, if new wine is placed into an old wineskin, and the new wine begins to ferment, because the old wineskin has already been stretched to capacity, the old wineskin will break. The point to be taken from both examples is that something will be lost, and that something else has to be done.

There have been quite a few interpreters of Mark 2:21-22; Matthew 9:16-17; and Luke 5:36-39, who have drawn the conclusion that the Messiah says that a new Christianity cannot be placed into an old Judaism. This new Christianity has hence replaced Judaism, the Law of Moses, and the rigidity of keeping commandments and various external rituals. To a wide extent, this view is very difficult to hold to, precisely because when we read a greater selection of Scripture passages, we can see that the Messiah’s purpose was not to abolish Moses’ Teaching, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:17). Still, it is fair to draw the conclusion that the new wine, needing to be placed into new wineskins, does represent how Yeshua has brought something new onto the scene.

What is different about Yeshua the Messiah, which is to be associated with the new wine? This will principally be seen by evaluating what is given to us in the surrounding cotext, where the analogy of “new wine in new wineskins” has been given.

Mark 2:21-22; Matthew 9:16-17; and Luke 5:36-39 are preceded with Yeshua being questioned as to why He chose to associate Himself with tax collectors and sinners, and then being questioned why He and His Disciples do not fast, when some others do fast:

“And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Yeshua and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, ‘Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?’ And hearing this, Yeshua said to them, ‘It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’ John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, ‘Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?’ And Yeshua said to them, ‘While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day’” (Mark 2:15-20).

“As Yeshua went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He said to him, ‘Follow Me!’ And he got up and followed Him. Then it happened that as Yeshua was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Yeshua and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, ‘Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?’ But when Yeshua heard this, He said, ‘It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: “I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE [Hosea 6:6],” for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’ Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?’ And Yeshua said to them, ‘The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast’” (Matthew 9:9-15).

“After that He went out and noticed a tax collector named Levi sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’ And he left everything behind, and got up and began to follow Him. And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, ‘Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?’ And Yeshua answered and said to them, ‘It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.’ And they said to Him, ‘The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.’ And Yeshua said to them, ‘You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days’” (Luke 5:27-35).

Mark 2:21-22 and Luke 5:36-39 are then followed with Yeshua being asked about why He presumably “breaks” the Sabbath:

“And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’ And He said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?’ Yeshua said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’” (Mark 2:23-28).

“Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. But some of the Pharisees said, ‘Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’ And Yeshua answering them said, ‘Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?’ And He was saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’” (Luke 6:1-5).

Those readers of what is witnessed in Mark 2:21-22; Matthew 9:16-17; and Luke 5:36-39, and what appears in its wider cotext—perhaps only armed with a cursory or basic knowledge of Second Temple Judaism—should be able to easily deduce what “new wine in new wineskins” communicated to those who originally heard, or later read it. This has absolutely nothing to do with a new Christianity replacing an old Judaism. Rather, Yeshua referenced “new wine in new wineskins” in relationship to His own teachings, ministry methods, orthopraxy, and halachah. The way Yeshua did things, as He associated Himself with tax collectors and sinners, as He reached out to those disenfranchised persons others would dismiss, why He and His Disciples did not fast as did some others, and what He permitted His Disciples to do on the Sabbath—were different than some of His other contemporaries.

The analogy of the new wine, not being contained by the old wineskins, should be taken to mean that Yeshua’s new teachings/orthopraxy/halachah—a definite feature of His fulfillment of the Torah and mission given to Him by the Father—cannot be contained by older methods of teaching/orthopraxy/halachah. If replacement of the Torah of Moses and Judaism were truly something in view, then Yeshua would have surely asked something like: “Why drink wine when you can have strong liquor?”[a] We do not see such a replacement mentioned here. How wine ferments still stands as a common frame of reference. Methods of doing things and conducting oneself as a servant of the Lord, representative of the new wine that needs to be placed into a new wineskin, to ferment and mature and not be lost, are specifically what is in view—not the fact that the Lord expects His people to obey His commandments.[b]

When Yeshua’s reference to “new wine in new wineskins” is properly read with the wider cotext in mind, replacement of an old Judaism for a new Christianity is not what is witnessed. Rather, what are witnessed are old, outdated and unuseful ways of conducting oneself as a religious person, which need to naturally give way to the Messiah’s methods and example of service and action. While debates over the right way of how to do things are affluent throughout the Jewish theological tradition, they are surely not devoid from the many centuries of Christian theological reflection and debate, either. Older ways of doing things can become stale and ineffective, needing a reforming, or even prophetic voice, to come on the scene and offer a new approach that can meet the concerns of others who need to be touched by the gospel. In all likelihood, the observation of Yeshua in Luke 5:39, “no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough,’” is a statement on the resistance to change by people when it is necessary. When old methods of service to God and ministry need to give way to new methods, there is frequently a high degree of disregard for it.

If it were encouraged in more sectors of the contemporary Christian Church, to read “new wine in new wineskins” in context with what is stated in the surrounding Gospel text, then perhaps more people would be tuned in to how the issues regard Yeshua’s style of ministry service. If replacement of God’s Law or His commandments were really the issue, then wine and wineskins would have been contrasted to some other beverage or food product. This is not what we see, and it is most unfortunate how “new wine in new wineskins” has been able to get out of control as a sound byte, used by those who should be reading their Bibles a little more intelligibly.

What is your position on women in ministry? Should Messianic women be allowed to be teachers, pastors/rabbis, or occupy positions of leadership?

The issue of women in ministry is something, which as of today, there is likely no Messianic consensus upon. There will be leaders, teachers, congregations, and organizations which (strongly) oppose women in positions of rabbinic/pastoral leadership, and there will be leaders, teachers, congregations, and organizations which support women in positions of rabbinic/pastoral leadership. Not surprisingly, the position that TNN Online editor J.K. McKee holds, regarding various passages which inform Bible readers about this issue, is largely his own.

The most common passage used against women in ministry is 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” Those who oppose women in positions of leadership place a very strong emphasis on these verses. Many believe that the Apostle Paul has just issued a moratorium on all women in positions of ministry leadership for all time. It is not difficult to see why the current feminist movement has claimed that much of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism) is dominated by male chauvinists, and why liberals largely discount 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles (2 Timothy and Titus) as authentically Pauline. What are we to do with 1 Timothy 2:11-12?

In the Hebrew Tanach, we certainly see some women in positions of critical leadership. Heroines such as Deborah (Judges 4-5), Ruth, and Esther are certainly godly women to be considered as models of exemplary service. In significant sectors of Judaism, the issue of women in leadership is not as severe as it is in various sectors of evangelical Christianity (and by extension, the Messianic community), because there are significant examples of women leading others in the Tanach. These examples cannot be disregarded in any examination of whether or not women should be allowed to occupy positions of spiritual leadership.

While the evil woman Queen Jezebel is often cited as the example of what will happen should women ever be placed in any positions of spiritual authority—as “Jezebel” represents the epitome of an evil, controlling female—Jezebel likely receives too much attention at the expense of all of the evil males seen in Scripture. While Jezebel is targeted as the epitome of evil females—what one single male example could be given to represent evil men? The Pharaoh of the Exodus, Haman, (Antiochus Epiphanes), Judas Iscariot, the antichrist? This is difficult for many Bible readers to determine. Many claim that if women are given positions of spiritual authority that things will run amok, but this is a rather weak argument in view of the fact that there are scores of examples available from religious history where men have controlled things and problems have abounded. Both men and women are equally guilty of causing problems for the faith community across the centuries.

In the Apostolic Scriptures themselves, we do see women take on a significant role in leadership. In Galatians 3:28, Paul says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yeshua.” There is to be a status of unity for those with faith in Yeshua the Messiah where gender does not significantly matter.[c] Following Paul’s visit to Philippi in Acts 16, it is the female Lydia who leads the new group of Believers, and Paul’s letter to the Philippians includes a reference to two women, Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2), who presumably occupy positions of leadership. Paul extends greetings to a female apostle, “Junia,” in Romans 16:7 (NRSV, ESV, HCSB).[d] And, we cannot forget the wife-husband teaching duo of Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18.[e]

If there are witnesses in the Pauline corpus and Book of Acts to women being in positions of leadership in local assemblies of ancient Messiah followers, then is Paul contradicting himself in 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Or, is there a part of Paul’s letter to Timothy that is commonly missed or not considered?

To accurately understand Paul’s remarks in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 about women not teaching, we have to consider what 1 Timothy probably meant for the circumstances Timothy faced while administrating the assemblies the vicinity of Ephesus. For the cultural norms of the day, Paul’s instruction “I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments” (1 Timothy 2:9), was undeniably appropriate. Braided hair, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing would have been considered signs of opulence, and possibly also sexual lewdness, for many females. Are these signs of opulence today, in the Twenty-First Century? Some who embrace a strict reading of the text, as though it speaks directly to all generations and all cultures at all times—without any kind of consideration for ancient history and setting—would say yes. Yet, we should be a bit more cautious in making such an extrapolation, as various interpreters would not argue that this is a prohibition for women wearing these things for all time. A value judgment regarding ancient and modern culture, and what is considered “modest,” has to be made.

When Paul further admonishes Timothy, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12), additional considerations have to be recognized. If Paul believes that various gender restrictions are irrelevant in Yeshua (Galatians 3:28), has he contradicted himself? (Is the letter of 1 Timothy a Deutero-Pauline composition as liberals commonly claim?) Or, have circumstances arisen in Ephesus that require the Apostle to tell Timothy to pull back the reigns on the involvement of the women in the assemblies he oversees?

It must be noted that the verb authenteō is rendered as “usurp authority” in the KJV, and this can significantly alter our perception of the circumstances in Ephesus that Timothy was facing. While commonly rendered with “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (NASU), 1 Timothy 2:12 in the TNIV has the noticeably different, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.”

A scholastic lexicon like BDAG does define authenteō as “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to,”[f] followed by a more classical lexicon like LS, having “to have full power over.”[g] AMG actually defines authenteō as being related to the noun “authéntēs...murderer, absolute master, which is from autos...himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self-appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power.”[h] At our disposal are lexical definitions which would support how authority in general terms is not the issue Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2:12. The rather negative verb authenteō only appears in one place in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures (and not in the Greek Septuagint either), whereas the noun exousia and verb exousiazō are used throughout the Pauline letters to describe “authority” in general.[i] In the estimation of Philip B. Payne,

“If Paul wanted to convey the meaning of ‘to have authority’ without any negative nuances, it would have been natural for him to use a term such as he did in verse 2 of [1 Timothy 2] [en huperochē einai] or [exousian echein] [Romans 9:21] or [exousiazein] [1 Corinthians 6:12; 7:4] or one of the many other expressions Paul uses for having, using, or sharing authority.”[j]

We know that there were women in positions of leadership in the First Century ekklēsia, per the examples of those like Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Priscilla, and Junia. Is it possible that with the spread of the gospel, women in Timothy’s Ephesian congregations were feeling “liberated”—and “liberated” so much so that they tried to usurp the authority of the already existent male leadership? To what extent did the false teaching that advocated that the resurrection had already occurred factor in (2 Timothy 2:18)?

If Paul’s admonition to Timothy more specifically concerns women usurping leadership in the Ephesian congregations, then his words “A woman must be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission” (1 Timothy 2:11, NEB), can be more easily understood. Women in the First Century Mediterranean world were largely uneducated, untaught, or untrained (and illiterate). Men, on the contrary, were those who were largely allowed to be given some kind of schooling. If the Ephesian women—the largely untaught, uneducated women—were trying to usurp the authority of the taught, trained Ephesian men, Paul would absolutely want them to remain quiet and submissively learn. Many of these women would have been speaking about things they knew little or nothing about, either from the Holy Scriptures or society in general, and Paul would have instead wanted them to be prepared by the men who already had schooling, were literate, and were largely informed about Biblical matters.

Of course, the ramifications of this view are quite severe for any religious movement since. If Paul’s argument more specifically concerns First Century untaught and untrained females usurping the position of taught and trained males in the ekklēsia, then a modern-day application could be that either unqualified females or males are prohibited from usurping the position of those qualified for positions of spiritual leadership. This might ask various sectors of today’s Messianic movement some questions it is (largely) unprepared to answer.

With this in mind, we also have to consider what Paul means afterward in 1 Timothy 2:13-15:

“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

1 Timothy 2:13-14 can be interpreted that since it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent in the Garden of Eden, that women are less intelligent and more susceptible to sin than men. Paul’s observation, though, is that Adam was “formed” (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV) before Eve, the verb plassō better viewed as “to form, mould, shape,” which in a classical context could mean “generally, to mould and form by education, training” (LS).[k] Adam had more experience in the Garden interacting with God and His Creation than Eve who came after him, and he failed to pass knowledge of this onto his wife who was deceived by the serpent.

Continuing, 1 Timothy 2:15 has been widely interpreted as meaning that the only place for women in the assembly is to be mothers and raise children. Yet, there is a translation issue that needs to be considered for women “saved through bearing children” (RSV). The Greek clause dia tēs teknogonias is literally “through the child-bearing” (YLT), including the definite article. The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes,

“This much debated verse has also been translated (1) ‘she will be saved through the birth of the Child’ [referring to Jesus Christ], or (b) ‘she will be brought safely through childbirth.’”[l]

A version like the New English Bible, likewise includes the alternate rendering, “through the Birth of the Child,” in a footnote.[m]

The emphasis of 1 Timothy 2:15 appears to more specifically be on “the Childbearing,” who is Yeshua the Messiah (the Seed promised to Eve in Genesis 3:15), rather than a physical act of giving birth to children. Paul’s instruction to Timothy in Ephesus is that the women are to seek their salvation in Him, and continue in proper faith, holiness, and piety. It is not a statement that women should just be placed in the corner and remain perpetually pregnant, completely oblivious to what goes on in some kind of a male-dominated and male-controlled congregation, male leaders that they are—for all time—to blindly follow without question.

TNN Online editor J.K. McKee is personally convinced that when 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is weighed with the heroines of the Tanach, and other significant examples of women in positions of leadership in the Apostolic Scriptures, that there is no major or substantial basis for excluding women from positions of leadership in the assembly today. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 depicts a local situation to First Century Ephesus, with various translation issues that must be considered for an appropriate interpretation.[n]

The major factor to consider for individuals holding positions of leadership, either as pastors/rabbis of local assemblies or greater positions, is not gender but is having the right qualifications. What makes this a controversial view is that it assumes that today’s leaders in the current, largely male-dominated Messianic movement, have the right qualifications (and some may not).[o]

In time, especially as evangelical Christianity continues to struggle with the issues of women in ministry, so will today’s Messianic community likewise have to struggle with them. At present, forming any kind of consensus seems unlikely.

For a further examination, we recommend you consult the books Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) for a general overview of the options, and Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992). Also to be significantly considered is Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).

Which is the correct reading of Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are they who keep His commandments,” or “Blessed are they who wash their robes”?

Revelation 22:14 reads differently in the Greek Textus Receptus of the Apostolic Scriptures, than it does in the critical Greek texts used today for most English Bible versions. In the KJV, Revelation 22:14 reads as follows:

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

In modern English Bibles, using critical Greek texts, the verse reads slightly differently:

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city” (NASU).

The difference is obviously that the Textus Receptus includes the phrase, “Blessed are they that do his commandments,” versus “Blessed are those who wash their robes.” Some may claim foul play with the Scriptures, and that texts have been deliberately altered to support a particular doctrinal bias. However, the reading “Blessed are those who wash their robes” is older. Bruce Metzger notes in his work A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament that the change happened rather innocently, because in ancient times the Greek Scriptures were copied with one person reading the text out loud, and multiple scribes copying it. This inevitably led to some textual deviations occurring. He comments,

“Instead of [plunontes tas stolas autōn], supported by A about 15 minuscules (including 1006 2020 2053) itar vg copsa al, the Textus Receptus, following 046 most minuscules itgig syrph, h copbo al, reads the somewhat similar sounding words [poiountes tas entolas autou]. The latter reading appears to be a scribal emendation, for elsewhere the author uses the expression [tērein tas entolas] (12.17; 14.12).”[p]

Hearing the audible phrase plunontes tas stolas autōn, some Greek copyists wrote poiountes tas entolas autou. This latter phrase means “Happy are those doing His commands” (YLT). There is no foul play here, but innocent human error. Metgzer is keen to note that both Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 previously emphasize God’s people keeping His commandments, and how a copyist would have had this idea in mind when hearing what text to write down. However, the correct reading is plunontes tas stolas autōn, “Blessed are those who wash their robes.”

In a Messianic movement which strongly encourages Believers to keep and follow the Torah or Law of Moses, determining the correct reading of this verse can be a problem. When we determine what the correct reading of this verse should be, we have to ask the question of what is more important: Is keeping God’s commandments more important than having our robes washed in the Messiah’s blood? Or, is being covered by His blood and having salvation more important than keeping God’s commandments?

Many in today’s Messianic community, unfortunately, will say that observing the Torah is superior to knowing Messiah Yeshua as our Lord and Savior. As keeping God’s commandments is a theme of Revelation, we have to understand that you cannot hope to enter into His Kingdom without being washed by the Messiah’s blood. Our Torah observance is to come as a result of us being transformed by God’s power, and us being continually sanctified and renewed as we grow in our faith. But, our Torah observance is not to precede our salvation experience—and is not more important than knowing Yeshua. There may be many people who are disappointed—and who were “Torah observant”—when they are not allowed into the Messiah’s Kingdom.

NOTES

[a]

Luke 1:15 does make a reference to sikera or “strong liquor,” indicating that something stronger than just fermented wine was present in the First Century world.

[b] This is where it needs to be recognized how the Greek term exesti, “defined as either “it is allowed, it is in one's power, is possible” (LS, 273), or “perhaps also “it is proper, permitted” (CGEDNT, 64), is better rendered as either “permitted” or “permissible” in places such as Mark 2:24, 26 and Luke 6:2, 4. As it regards Sabbath keeping, the issue would be over disagreements of Sabbath practice, not the general relevance of the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8; Deuteronomy 5:12).

[c] For a further examination, consult the exegesis paper on Galatians 3:28 by J.K. McKee, “Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement,” appearing as Appendix C in his commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

[d] For a discussion on this, consult the blog post “Jumpin’ Junia(s)!” by J.K. McKee.

[e] Of useful consideration per this subject matter, are some of the key observations made in Craig S. Keener, “Another Egalitarian Perspective,” in James R. Beck, ed., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pp 205-248.

[f] BDAG, 150.

[g] LS, 132.

[h] Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 288.

[i] Cf. LS, 276; BDAG, pp 352-354.

[j] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 375.

[k] LS, 643.

[l] Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha, RSV (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp 1441-1442.

[m] New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970), NT 267.

[n] For a further analysis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and related issues, consult the article “The Message of the Pastoral Epistles” and commentary The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic, both by J.K. McKee.

[o] As it concerns the issue of women not being permitted to speak in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, it is noteworthy that earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul recognized the role that women played in praying and prophesying in public. These two verses later would seem to contradict this. It might be suggested that female “chatter” (Grk. verb laleō) in Corinth could be the issue instead, but the authority of the Torah is notably appealed to justify a silence of women.

Various conservative, evangelical Christian interpreters have made a strong case in favor of 1 Corinthians 13:34-35 actually being an interpolation of a later copyist. Of significant interest would be the direct appeal made to “the Law” in silencing women, especially as there is no specific prohibition in the Torah or Pentateuch that bars women from speaking in the assembly. This is a position that TNN Online editor J.K. McKee is inclined to seriously consider.

Cf. Gordon D. Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp 699-708; “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Did Paul Forbid Women to Speak in Church?”, in Payne, pp 217-267.

[p] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 765.

FAQs related to Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?

Why are there so many leaders in the Messianic movement who call themselves “rabbi”? Yeshua explicitly forbade this in Matthew 23:8.

Yeshua’s overall words, in Matthew ch. 23, have certainly provoked a wide number of emotional responses, from people all across the Messianic spectrum, as it pertains to the issue of authority and respect to be afforded to the ancient Pharisees—and by extension various Jewish authorities today. Within the wider cotext of Matthew 22:23-23:36, it is fair for readers to recognize a wide level of theological agreement that Yeshua had with the Pharisees, particularly in terms of the doctrine of resurrection (Matthew 22:23-32), and that Yeshua recognized a legitimate role of leadership that the Pharisees had—but consequently Yeshua also warned His followers not to emulate their behavior and attitudes.[a]

Many leaders in contemporary Messianic Judaism, obviously in conjunction with their non-Messianic Jewish counterparts, do go by the title of “rabbi,” as opposed to customary Protestant Christian titles like “pastor” or “reverend.” Yeshua’s word of Matthew 23:6-10 has been commonly invoked, by many people, when encountering Messianic Believers who refer to themselves as “Rabbi XYZ”:

“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Messiah.”

Yeshua’s word, “you are not to let yourselves be called ‘Rabbi’” (CJB), has been widely and unfairly cast at many diligently serving and sincere Messianic Jewish leaders, who widely use the title “rabbi” as an alternative to “pastor.”

Aside from some of the specific context issues to be considered regarding Matthew 23:6-10, is how most individuals who see Yeshua’s word as being a uniform moratorium on using the title “rabbi,” have not made any attempt to insist that there be a similar moratorium on calling human fathers by the title “father.” Yeshua does say after all, “do not call anyone on earth ‘Father’” (CJB).

There is little doubting how many of the First Century Pharisaical leaders, whose hypocrisy Yeshua is describing, made being called rabbi (pronounced rab-bee) an intense source of personal pride, arrogance, and condescension: “they love being greeted deferentially in the marketplaces and being called ‘Rabbi’” (Matthew 23:7, CJB). Yeshua’s answer to this is not just “do not be called Rabbi,” but also, “for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). This One is easily recognized to be God the Father and/or Yeshua Himself. And, there is no doubting from any survey of the Gospels, that Yeshua did go by the title “rabbi.”

To this Yeshua further states, “Do not call anyone on earth your father,” which is specified to mean, “for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:8). If one holds to a overly-literal meaning of Matthew 23:8, then our Earthly fathers, even as our legitimate parents, should never be called “father,” and the title “mother” should likewise be considered off limits. But again, there has been no upswell by any Messianic person to demand that people not call their parents by terms like “father” or “mother.”

Yeshua’s words about neither being called “rabbi” or “father” must relate to the position of significance that various people often ascribe to those who serve in such capacities. Many people look to human teachers, “rabbis,” as being the ultimate authority from which to receive instruction. Obviously, this is wrong, as the only ultimate Teacher is the Lord Himself. Similarly, and this is certainly borne out in much of Jewish history, the students of many rabbis can come to think of their teachers as being a sort of “father,” not only superior to their natural parent, but also in many ways superior to God. Yeshua obviously wanted this sort of misunderstanding to be corrected. There is only One ultimate leader for the assembly: the Messiah alone (Matthew 23:10).

Given how Matthew 23:8 tends to be quoted alone, with only a demand for Messianic leaders to not be called “rabbi”—without a similar demand for Earthly fathers to never be called “father,” or even the term “leader” to never be used (Matthew 23:9, 10)—it is fair to deduce that Yeshua’s intention concerned the arrogance of those allowing themselves to be called “rabbi” and thinking that they had authority at the level of, or superior to, God. Such individuals were to be dismissed, with the attention of Messiah followers focused exclusively on the Lord. Yeshua wanted His disciples and followers to be especially focused on the needs of service of one to another (Matthew 23:11-12), which those presumed “rabbis,” “fathers,” and “leaders” of Matthew 23:8-10 were not doing. Yeshua did not issue a blanket prohibition on religious leaders possessing the title, or occupying the office of “rabbi,” any more than He issued a blanket prohibition on Earthly fathers being called “father.”

For the future, today’s Messianic community will witness many, many people say—either directly to a leader, or at least under their breath—“call no man rabbi...” without a greater consideration for the wider context of statements made by the Messiah. While there will always be those in leadership, whether they call themselves “rabbi” or not, who will have issues with hypocrisy and arrogance—we should not think that Yeshua is forbidding contemporary Messianic Jewish leaders from possessing the title “rabbi.” Yet at the same time, it is rather safe to conclude that a significant number of the Messianic Jewish leaders who go by the title “rabbi,” who might be meek and able servants of the Lord, do not possess the training or credentials to really possess or employ this title. In his short article, “The Title ‘Messianic Rabbi’ Carries Heavy Expectations,” Sean Emslie makes some valid observations:

“[An] important issue of ‘Messianic rabbis’ is the majority of ‘Messianic rabbis’ in our movement who are using this title without having taken a rigorous course of study in Torah, Rabbinics, Hebrew and Jewish studies.

“In the larger Jewish world, the training for the rabbinate involves many years of study—either a graduate level of study in Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism or in Orthodox Judaism—and a lifetime of study capped by intense Talmudic studies in yeshiva. With this rigor comes the title of ‘rabbi.’ The need to make our congregational leaders of the future knowledgeable in the Bible, in Hebrew and in Jewish studies is not an option but a mandate....

“If our ‘rabbis’ are merely those individuals who self-apply the title or those who receive ordination without a solid background in Hebrew, Rabbinics, Torah and Jewish studies, then we are misusing a title with great meaning in the Jewish world and we are also allowing for the Messianic community to be open to disrespect before the larger Jewish world...”[b]

The sad truth is that most Messianic Jewish congregational leaders, who go by the title “rabbi,” while not possessing the type of training or credentials to go by this title in Conservative or Reform Judaism—do not even have the minimum training or credentials required of an evangelical Christian pastor.[c] And Emslie did leave out more important disciplines that Messianic “rabbis” must possess, including knowledge of: ancient Near Eastern and classical history, Christian history, and Greek language studies.

NOTES

[a]

Consult J.K. McKee’s article on Matthew 23:2-3, “Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?”, appearing in this publication.

[b] Sean Emslie. (2013). The Title ‘Messianic Rabbi’ Carries Heavy Expectations. Charisma Magazine. Retrieved 29 May, 2013, from <http://charismamag.com>.

[c] For a further discussion on this, and related issues, consult the relevant sections of the editor’s commentary The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic.

FAQs related to Is God’s Purpose Bigger and Considering Messianic Jewish Fears of Replacement and Irrelevance

I have been told by some Messianics that the only commandments that Gentiles are supposed to follow are the seven Noahide laws. I have then been told by other Messianics that the seven Noahide laws are an invention of later Judaism, and were not from the Biblical period. Can you please help me with this?

The following entry has been adapted from the commentary appearing in TorahScope, Volume I by Mark Huey, on Shelakh-Lekha (Numbers 13:1-15:41), entitled “Scriptural Equality”

The following is a brief description of “Noahides” as provided by the Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period:

“non-Jews who observe the seven laws that apply to the descendants of Noah (namely, all peoples). According to rabbinic authorities, these include the following prohibitions: idolatry, adultery and incest, bloodshed, blasphemy, robbery, social injustice, and eating the flesh of a limb cut from a living animal (T. Aḇodah Zarah 8:4-8).”[a]

The conviction of many of today’s non-Jewish Messianic Believers is that they are a part of the community of Israel via their faith in Messiah Yeshua (cf. Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 6:16; et. al.). As the Torah itself communicates, “One law and one standard applies for you and for the alien residing with you” (Numbers 15:15ff, Keter Crown Bible). This would seem to mean that non-Jewish Believers should be following the Torah as relatively indifferently than Jewish Believers.[b] They should consider the Law of Moses to have relevance and blessing for their lives, informing them how the Lord wants all of His people to be holy and set-apart unto Him. In fact, while the Torah originally communicated to Ancient Israel that there was to only be one standard for the native or sojourner, in the post-resurrection era non-Jewish Believers are to be regarded “no longer [as] strangers and aliens, but...fellow citizens with the saints, and...of God's household” (Ephesians 3:6). Such a classification of native, sojourner, or even “God-fearer”—is to be largely regarded as a part of the pre-resurrection era.[c] If anything, all Believers in Messiah Yeshua are sojourners and aliens in the world, their citizenship in Heaven (1 Peter 2:11; Philippians 3:20).

Many of today’s Messianic Jews eagerly embrace non-Jewish Believers as their fellow brothers and sisters, and are more than happy for them to be considering God’s Torah as relevant instruction. They want the Messianic movement to be the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB). They know that the enemy wants to keep Jewish Believers and non-Jewish Believers divided as much as he can. They know that a Messianic Judaism off to itself, with an evangelical Christianity still often disregarding the Law of Moses, is not at all a good thing. Even if there are some obstacles and difficulties along the way, many Messianic Jews we know recognize that we all have to work together to see a restoration of Israel come forth that is more all-encompassing than just involving the Jewish people; it is something that involves the entire world.

Contrary to the thought that the Torah is relevant for all of God’s people is the Jewish theological construct that the Torah is only to be followed by the Jews. The nations at large are thought to only have to really follow seven precepts affecting the b’nai Noach or children of Noah, derived from Genesis 9. Much of this concept has made its way into parts of Messianic Judaism as well, which has thought that non-Jewish Believers can become “righteous Gentiles” by only following the seven Noahide laws. By extension, some even think that the Apostolic decree of Acts 15:19-21 is based in these Noahide laws, which include:

1.  a prohibition against idolatry

2.  a prohibition against blasphemy

3.  a prohibition against bloodshed/murder

4.  prohibitions against incest and adultery

5.  a prohibition against robbery

6.  the need to establish courts of law

7.  a prohibition against eating flesh cut from a living animal[d]

While these seven prohibitions are surely righteous injunctions to be observed by all Messiah followers, suggesting that these are the only “commandments” that non-Jewish Believers are to follow today is a bit of a hasty conclusion. The Apostolic Scriptures include clear instruction to mixed assemblies of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers that goes well beyond these seven issues—as important as they are.[e] But more problematic for those Messianic Jews who might want to view non-Jewish Believers only being some kind of “Noahides,” is the fact that these so-called Noahide laws were likely not formulated until after the destruction of the Second Temple. There are two lists of these different regulations found in Jewish literature (Jubilees 7:20-21;[f] t.Avodah Zarah 8:4[g]), and as David Instone-Brewer points out, “The two versions of the list in Jubilees and in later rabbinic texts have so little in common that we cannot know what this list contained in the first century or even if such a list existed.”[h]

I am a non-Jewish Believer in the Messianic movement, and I am a bit disturbed at how I have encountered various Jewish Believers in my midst use the term “Gentile.” I am not at all trying to be ethnically or culturally Jewish in following Torah, even though I respect my fellow Jewish brothers and sisters, but I get a sense that the term “Gentile” is being used with some negative or pejorative sense. Is it not true that the term “Gentile” can actually mean “pagan”? Can you help me?

If you are a non-Jewish Believer within today’s Messianic movement, and have encountered the term “Gentile” being used in a less-than-neutral sense, then you are not at all alone. Many non-Jews in various Messianic quarters have seen the term “Gentile” used in a disparaging or negative sense. There are some important dynamics of this which need to be considered, regarding the contemporary speech of today’s Messianic Believers, as well as some little known facts from Biblical Studies regarding the Hebrew and Greek terms, often rendered as “Gentile(s),” which sit behind our English translations of the Bible. As it regards the common term “Gentile(s),” today’s broad Messianic community is significantly hampered by a lack of understanding the great importance of employing some degree of inclusive language in the terms it employs to speak of people, in general, which goes well beyond non-Jewish people groups.

Goy and Ethnos: “Gentile” or “Nation”?

In order to properly consider the issue surrounding the English term “Gentile,” every Bible reader needs to know the underlying Hebrew and Greek terms appearing in the source text, which are commonly rendered as such. We need to have appropriate definitions of the Hebrew word goy and Greek word ethnos, and have a good idea of how they were used in their original contexts.

The common Hebrew word that one will encounter, sometimes rendered as “Gentile” in older versions like the KJV, is the term goy. Its plural form, and possibly more common usage that you will encounter is goyim. The HALOT lexicon indicates that it relates to “people…whole population of a territory; [am] rather stresses the blood relationship,” “nation,” “often the pagan peoples as opposed to Israel…the ‘heathen,’” “people=persons.”[i] The BDB lexicon states how goy means “nation, people,” “spec. of descendants of Abraham,” “definitely of Israel.”[j]

Witnessed in the Hebrew Tanach, goy/goyim has a wide array of uses. In its most neutral sense, goy/goyim means nation/nations. This can relate to the masses of Planet Earth, those outside of the bloodlines of Israel, the enemies of Israel, sheer pagans and idolaters, and it can even relate to the people of Israel itself. Regarding the progeny of Abraham, the Patriarch was told by God, “I will make you a great nation [goy gadol], and I will bless you, and make your name great” (Genesis 12:2). The assembly of the Ancient Israelites gathered at Mount Sinai was told by the Lord, “you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [goy qadosh]” (Exodus 19:6). The term goyim can even relate to the tribes of Israel, as Ezekiel 2:3 states, “I send you to the Children of Israel, to the rebellious nations [el-goyim] that have rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have defiantly sinned against Me; they and their fathers have defiantly sinned against Me to this very day” (ATS). Context in a Tanach passage where goy/goyim appears, ultimately determines the different contours of what is intended by its usage.

The Greek equivalent term for the Hebrew goy is ethnos, and is used fairly consistently in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Tanach to render goy/goyim. The BDAG lexicon indicates how “[(ta) ethnē are] people groups foreign to a specific people group” which “corresp. to Heb. [goyim] in LXX; a nationalistic expression.”[k] Being concerned with both Biblical and classical usages of ethnos, the LS lexicon offers us with a variety of definitions, including: “a number of people accustomed to live together, a company, body of men,” “a nation, people,” “the nations, Gentiles, i.e. all but Jews and Christians.”[l] TDNT further observes that ethnos can mean “‘mass,’ ‘multitude,’ ‘host,’ and may be used for a ‘herd’ or ‘swarm’ as well as a human group.”[m]

Unlike how the Hebrew goy/goyim is most always rendered in modern versions by the neutral nation/nations, usages of ethnos may considerably vary. Among modern versions ethnos will be translated as both “Gentile(s)” and “nation(s).” And it should not go unnoticed that in the LXX, when Ancient Israel was originally called in the Hebrew to be a goy qadosh in Exodus 19:6, in the Greek it reads with ethnos hagion. Just like with goy/goyim, context in a New Testament passage will determine what is intended by ethnos. Yet unlike goy/goyim, which modern versions tend to leave as nation/nations, we have the added complexity of seeing ethnos rendered in at least two different ways. This can, with some important passages, likely make reviewing their intended meaning(s) a bit more complicated.

Various general theological resources, in their entry for “Gentiles,” have noted some of the translation issues for goy/goyim and ethnos, that each of us needs to be conscious of when reading a English translation, and considering the source vocabulary:

•      Baker’s Dictionary of Theology: “The Hebrew gôyim designates non-Jewish peoples, rendered by the AV as ‘nations’ or ‘heathen,’ by the RV frequently as ‘Gentiles.’ The ‘people,’ ‘am, is usually confined to Israel. The LXX makes a similar distinction between ethnos and laos…”[n]

•      International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The Heb. gôy is rendered ‘Gentiles’ in the AV in some thirty passages, but much more frequently ‘heathen,’ and still more often ‘nation,’ which is the usual rendering in later versions; but it is commonly used for a non-Israelite people, and thus corresponds to the meaning of ‘Gentiles.’..In the NT Gk. ethnos is the word corresponding to gôy (usually rendered ‘Gentiles’ by the English versions)…The AV also renders Gk. Hellēnes ‘Gentiles’ in six passages, but the RSV renders ‘Greeks’ throughout.”[o]

A notable definition of the Greek ethnos that need not overlook us, in evaluating this term, is provided by BDAG: “those who do not belong to groups professing faith in the God of Israel, the nations, gentiles, unbelievers (in effect=‘polytheists’).”[p] This is a lexical definition where substantiation for viewing the nations/Gentiles in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures as “pagans,” would find some support. And indeed, in places like 1 Corinthians 5:1; 10:20, where a version like the NASU has “Gentiles,” the RSV and NIV has “pagans”:

“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles [en tois ethnesin], that someone has his father's wife…No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice [hoti ha thuousin; lit. ‘that what they sacrifice,’ HCSB][q], they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons” (1 Corinthians 5:1; 10:20, NASU).

“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife…No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons” (1 Corinthians 5:1; 10:20, RSV).

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife… No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” (1 Corinthians 5:1; 10:20, NIV).[r]

One can easily see why versions like the RSV and NIV would choose to render ethnos as “pagan(s)” in the verses above (other verses that could be considered include 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 1 Peter 4:3). Yet at the same time, one can see a figure like the Apostle Paul say things in terms of “I am speaking to you who are Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), “the Gentiles in the flesh” (Ephesians 2:11), “I, Paul, [am] the prisoner of Messiah Yeshua for the sake of you Gentiles” (Ephesians 3:1)—all verses that employ the Greek ethnos. However, Paul would also instruct non-Jewish Believers, “So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk [CJB: do not live any longer as the pagans live], in the futility of their mind” (Ephesians 4:17).

The issue regarding the Greek ethnos, ultimately to be realized, is that while varied English translations can be found rendering it as “Gentile(s),” “nation(s),” or even “pagan(s)”—when the various Apostolic letters and documents were composed, they all used a single term. Readers and speakers in the First Century Mediterranean world could figure out, either because of how ethnos rendered goy/goyim in the Septuagint translation of the Tanach, or how it was used in the marketplace and on the street—what was really intended. In the English-speaking world, with our diverse vocabulary, we have to read the Apostolic Writings with some care. For some reason or another, many English Bibles have chosen to render ethnos as both “Gentile(s)” and “nation(s),” making somewhat of a value judgment for their readers. (Two notable exceptions to this, where ethnos is consistently rendered by the rather neutral nation/nations, are Young’s Literal Translation and the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Jay P. Green.)

But where did we get the term “Gentile” from, if ethnos best means “nation”? The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms informs us:

Gentile (From Lat. gentilis, “member of a people”) Term used by Jews for one who is not Jewish by racial origin. In the Old Testament, “the nations” (Heb. goyim) is used.[s]

The English term “Gentile” is actually derived from the Latin word gentilis, meaning “family, hereditary; national,”[t] being related to gens or “clan; tribe; family; race; nation.”[u] One will find the term gentilis and its cognates employed in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, and it is unavoidable for English at least, how this Latin term has influenced the history of English Bible translation. (And to perhaps make things even more complicated, one will also encounter the Latin term nationis, “tribe, race; breed class”[v] in the Vulgate, from which our English “nation” is derived as well.) What this means is that with two terms available for rendering the Hebrew goy/goyim and the Greek ethnos, there might not be as much consistency witnessed in an English Bible—that may actually be quite necessary where Tanach intertextuality is concerned. One example to be considered would be the quotation of Isaiah 9:1 in Matthew 4:15:

“But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations [Galil ha’goyim; Galilee of the Gentiles, NASU][w]” (Isaiah 9:1, RSV).

“[T]HE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES [Galilaia tōn ethnōn]” (Matthew 4:15, NASU).

The best, most neutral rendering seen for both Galil ha’goyim and Galilaia tōn ethnōn, the latter clause witnessed in both the LXX of Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew 4:15, is “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1, NETS). What is witnessed in the Vulgate for both Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew 4:15, however, is Galileae gentium. While this is not a problem if one were a Roman, Latin-speaking Christian in the early centuries of the faith, it does interject a dynamic for modern English speakers which we need to be aware of—a likely testament to English having mixed Latin and Germanic origins.

And perhaps interestingly enough, with this in mind, the closest, most wide-spoken relative to modern English, actually appears to lack the term “Gentile” in its vocabulary. If one turns to the rather massive Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, the words offered for the English “Gentile” include the noun Nichtjude and the adjective nichtjüdisch,[x] which are pretty easily discernible to mean non-Jew and non/not-Jewish. How did a German Bible like the 1993 Elberfelder Bibel render Galil ha’goyim and Galilaia tōn ethnōn? In Isaiah 9:1 we encounter “den Kreis[y] der Nationen,” and in Matthew 4:15, “Galiläa der Nationen.” One can also do some quick surveying of this German Bible, and will find that where various English Bibles have “Gentile(s),” the term Nation [na'tsĭo:n][z] is used instead. So among many examples to be considered, when the Jerusalem Believers conclude, “God has granted to the Gentiles [tois ethnesin] also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18), the Elberfelder Bibel has, “Dann hat Gott also auch den Nationen die Buße gegeben zum Leben.”

It is at this point where we reach an impasse. What is the best approach to the Hebrew goy/goyim and Greek ethnos? Is it really Gentile/Gentiles—or is it nation/nations? Much of this is undeniably a perspective issue, and how in their most neutral context both of these words mean nation/nations. Seriously consider, what the Apostle Paul communicates to his dear friend Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:17, reflecting back on his life of ministry service to the Lord:

“But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was rescued out of the lion's mouth.”

That Paul had a unique calling to the world at large is easily understood (cf. Acts 9:15; Romans 11:13). But is “all the Gentiles” the best rendering for panta ta ethnē? In the view of some Pastoral Epistles commentators “all the nations” is what is to be missionally understood here, which does not only include the world at large. The view of William D. Mounce, who is most well known for authoring various collegiate level Greek textbooks, is that when ethnē is rendered as “nations” here, then “the phrase ‘all the nations/Gentiles’ can mean ‘all groups of people,’ Jew and Gentile alike.”[aa] From this viewpoint then, panta ta ethnē is akin to “to those who had never heard” (The Message) the gospel message. We need to remember that even though Paul had a definite calling and skillset as a Jewish Believer that would help to bring the nations into the Commonwealth of Israel (cf. Ephesians 2:11-12), Paul never stopped believing that his own Jewish people needed salvation nor did he ever stop declaring Yeshua to them (cf. Romans 11:13-14). It would seem appropriate for us to view panta ta ethnē in 2 Timothy 4:17 as meaning everyone who needed to hear, all nations upon Planet Earth including Paul’s own Jewish people. Philip H. Towner appropriately summarizes,

“[T]he phrase ‘all the Gentiles/nations,’ which certainly need not exclude the Jewish people, is a theologically loaded term in Pauline thought (Rom 15:11; 16:26; Gal 3:28). It sums up the universal scope of the salvation plan of God, from the Abrahamic promise and institution of the covenant to its full unveiling in the Psalms and prophets, from which Paul clearly took his cue (Romans 9-11; 15:9-13; Gal 1:15-16).”[bb]

The blessing of Abraham and the sacrifice of Yeshua, remitting the curse of the Law, are for “all nations” (Galatians 3:8, 14), which necessarily includes the Jewish people as well as the world at large.

Surely with what we witness in Yeshua’s Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, the common rendering of “nations” is understood to convey a significant, worldwide effect:

“And Yeshua came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [panta ta ethnē], baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”

We may never be able to know why more English Bibles than not have chosen to render the Greek ethnos as both “Gentile(s)” and “nation(s),” and not just “nation(s).” But what we can know is that rendering this single Greek term, in two different ways, has created some confusion—if not some significant confusion in some quarters. The most significant confusion caused by the term “Gentile” is that it can underplay the universal availability of God’s salvation for all of humankind. In Isaiah 49:6, Yeshua the Messiah has come not only to restore the tribes of Israel, but also to be the or goyim or phōs ethnōn, “a light of the nations.” For consistency’s sake, English Bible readers need to train their minds to recognize that “Gentile(s)” really means “nation(s)”—and today’s Messianic teachers and leaders need to be a little more sensitive to this fact as well.

“Gentile” Can be an Offensive Term for Some

While among many Christians today, and in many theological works, the term “Gentile” is simply employed as a term to refer to a person who is not Jewish, meaning “one of the nations,” it is obvious in Scripture that the Greek ethnos can be used in various pejorative contexts. Yeshua’s direction regarding the reproof of someone who sins, includes the admonition, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the [assembly]; and if he refuses to listen even to the [assembly], let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). The clause ho ethnikos kai ho telōnēs, is rendered into the 1991 UBSHNT as k’goy v’k’mokeis. That both ethnos and goy can mean “a pagan” (CJB) here, does not go unnoticed.[cc]

Of course, as we have tried to emphasize above, there are not only many neutral usages of the terms goy/goyim and ethnos witnessed in the Bible, but these same terms are used to describe Israel. Context and usage alone, in the various verses on a case-by-case basis, determines what is to be intended. But to act like the terms goy/goyim and ethnos can never be viewed from the perspective of “pagan,” and that this does not in any way carry over into the English term “Gentile,” would be dishonest. ISBE, for example, indicates how “The general tendency…was one of increasing hostility toward the Gentiles. They and their countries were considered unclean.”[dd] EJ further notes how from a Jewish perspective in much of the Bible, “the low moral, social, and ethical standards of the surrounding gentiles were continuously emphasized, and social contact with them was regarded as being a pernicious social and moral influence. As a result, during this period the world was regarded as divided, insofar as peoples were concerned, into the Jewish people and the ‘nations of the world,’ and insofar as individuals were concerned, into ‘the Jew’ and the idolater.”[ee]

Whether goy/goyim or ethnos carry with it the intention of “…of the nations” or “pagan” in the Bible, can only be determined in the places where it is used. And, we should think that “nations(s)” is a far better, uniform rendering for these terms, leaving its exact meaning up to the reader to decide. It is, however, to be noted that in Rabbinical literature, one will encounter the Hebrew term goy used to mean “gentile, idolator” (Jastrow).[ff] An example provided by Jastrow to be considered is t.Avodah Zarah 3:4:

“A gentile woman should not be called upon to cut out the foetus in the womb of an Israelite girl. And she should not give her a cup of bitters to drink, for they are suspect as to the taking of life. And an Israelite should not be alone with a gentile either in a bathhouse or in a urinal. [When] an Israelite goes along with a gentile, he puts him at his right hand, and he does not put him at his left hand. R. Ishmael son of R. Yoḥanan b. Beroqah says, ‘[He goes along] with a sword in his right hand, with a staff in his left hand.’ [If] there are two going up on an ascent or going down on a ramp, the Israelite goes up ahead, and the gentile behind.”[gg]

Some of the viewpoints here are obviously historically conditioned, and are the result of a longstanding distrust on the part of the Jewish community toward outsiders. But, the point is taken that the goyim are to be kept at a distance.

More present in Judaism today is the line of an ancient prayer, which is customarily recited as a part of the morning Shacharit blessings, when the observant declare, “Blessed are You, HASHEM, our God, King of the universe, for not having made me a gentile,” asani goy.[hh] When non-Jewish Believers in today’s Messianic movement get wind of some Messianic Jews in the congregation they are attending, possibly saying this sort of thing before God every morning[ii]—and perhaps including some of their main leaders—they do get a little upset. Some of them even get livid. The Conservative Jewish Siddur Sim Shalom has thankfully changed much of this, only including the declaration “Praised are You Adonai our God, who rules the universe, making me a Jew” (although the Hebrew is actually Yisrael) and “making me free.”[jj] For reciting traditional prayers from the Jewish community, I do think that many of us can certainly understand the value of what Sim Shalom offers, and that we can appreciate how it has removed the rather negative remarks about not being made a Gentile. Thanking God for being a Jew or an Israelite is one thing (that I personally do not have a problem with); thanking God for not being Nationality XYZ is something else.

So what does the non-Jewish person in a Messianic Jewish congregation, who finds out about the ancient prayer of “for not having made me a gentile”—and who is understandably a bit offended—then do about it? The first thing, that tends to happen, is that when the term “Gentile” is spoken in various teachings or announcements or just common speech, the individual feels that he or she is likely being called some kind of a “pagan,” “heathen,” “idolater,” or something worse. Secondly, if various Messianic Jews have not been careful with how they have employed the term “Gentile,” at least also incorporating valid alternatives like “nations” or “peoples,” then some significant resentment can build up (rather quickly). Thirdly, and what can frequently happen, is that the non-Jewish Messianic who has taken considerable offense at being called a “Gentile,” will build a kind of personal credo around Ephesians 2:11, where the Apostle Paul says:

“Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands—”

It is from a verse like this where many non-Jewish Messianic Believers will claim that they are former Gentiles. It is absolutely true that for any non-Believer to come to saving faith in Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), that he or she is no longer a kind of pagan, heathen, idolater, insolent rebel, or even atheist against the Creator. Yet Paul’s words to those in Asia Minor are specific in that he speaks of those here as ta ethnē en sarki, “the nations in the flesh” (YLT) or “you who are Gentiles by birth” (NIV). When people come to faith in Yeshua, even though they may be saved and spiritually regenerated, their DNA does not change. He identifies these people as being of the nations, in the flesh. The former status that Paul is obviously more concerned about, and so should any of us for that matter, is detailed in Ephesians 2:11-12 together:

“Therefore remember that formerly…you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”

A status of being removed from Israel’s Messiah, Israel’s polity, Israel’s covenants, and being without the hope and knowledge of the Creator God—is what is really considered to be the former status for the non-Jewish Believers addressed in Ephesians. This is one which has been fully reversed. The non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor now know Israel’s Messiah, they are a part of Israel’s polity, they now benefit from Israel’s covenants, and they are truly known by the Creator God.[kk]

The term “Gentile,” goy, need not always have a negative meaning, but in various places in Jewish theology and commentary it will. The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period observes how goyim is the “generic Israelite expression for all of humanity except Israel. Most often this common biblical expression has a pejorative connotation that parallels the Greek use of ‘barbarians.’ By virtue of its covenantal relationship to YHWH and its observance of the Torah, Israel is contrasted with the rest of humanity, which stands outside the scope of God’s covenantal love.”[ll] This same entry is actually pretty even-handed, though, in further commenting, “While Gentiles are often pictured as sexually uninhibited and untrustworthy, they are also described as righteous and the progenitors of rabbis and even kings of Israel.”[mm]

But what meaning of goyim are we more likely to find for non-Jewish people, used in today’s Judaism and even Messianic Judaism? Does it mean “pagan” or just a “non-Jew”?

When non-Jewish Believers in today’s Messianic world know some of the theological background behind the term “Gentile,” it often does not make them very happy when it is used to define them. Knowing that the term goyim can frequently mean “pagan,” in many respects, can be offensive to more than a few. What is to be done about this?

When non-believing members of the Jewish community today refer to those outside the Synagogue as “Gentiles” or “goyim,” is it in the most positive of ways? When my mother grew up in Annapolis, Maryland with its sizeable Jewish population, she certainly witnessed the terms “goy” and “Gentile” used in some rather negative ways by her friends’ parents. (And with my two grandparents being from the Deep South, she also heard some other negative terms used to describe African Americans, and other minority groups.) When she has been in some Messianic Jewish congregations, and heard the congregational leader or speaker refer to the non-Jews in the audience as “goyim,” she has had difficulty separating it from her youth experience among her Jewish friends.

Non-Jewish Believers being referred to as “Gentiles” in the Messianic Jewish movement, or even some sectors of the independent Messianic world, can at times be suspect. I do know for certain that many Messianic Jews do not intend any offense when they use the term “Gentile,” and I also know that they want all people to be welcome in their assemblies. The easiest way to deflate some of this potential unwelcomeness is to simply employ a number of valid alternatives like “nations” or “peoples.” The neutral term “non-Jew” would also be appropriate to use.

Should we really use the term “Gentile”?

What are other terms we need to be careful of?

No one in today’s Messianic community should ever “freak out” when they hear the term “Gentile” used, because it is going to be heard at the very least from various English Bible translations and various theological resources. There can probably be, however, some better ways to communicate that are more sensitive to a group’s needs. If a Messianic congregational leader knows that there is a group of non-Jewish Believers in the assembly who might be offended if the term “Gentile” is used, then it might be incumbent to employ some worthwhile and valid alternatives like “nation(s)” or “people(s)” to offset a potential problem.

Many non-Jewish Messianics are asked to be sensitive to Jewish concerns with their usage of terms like “cross,” given the reality of many heinous acts of anti-Semitism committed in history involving the cross. While we may never totally stop using terms like “cross” or “crucified,” it is fair and advisable to employ valid alternatives like “tree” and “executed.”[nn] Is it too much, given some of the post-Second Temple usage of terms like “goy” and “goyim” and possible negative aspects surrounding the term “Gentile” in current Jewish culture, that some alternatives likewise be used? I have a feeling that in the case of many people in the Messianic movement, especially in much of Messianic Judaism, that for the considerable time being we may be dealing with a one-way street on this issue. Consider some of the thoughts offered by Toby Janicki in his article “What is a Gentile?”:

“The word ‘Gentile’ is not a negative term, nor does it refer to idolaters in any essential way. Although it has had various implications in different contexts, its primary meaning is that of ‘one from the nations.’ This is the designation that the apostles used to distinguish non-Jewish believers from Jewish believers. If it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.”[oo]

The Biblical terms that are actually used to describe the nations are goy/goyim and ethnos—nation(s). While context determines whether people in general, or some kind of pagan idolaters, are intended, it is disingenuous of anyone in either Messianic Judaism or the broader Messianic world to fail to recognize that in the Twenty-First Century, the English term “Gentile” can offend some non-Jewish Believers. It is also disingenuous to think that in some modern Jewish cultural contexts, when the goyim or Gentiles are referred to, it is speaking of non-Jews in a totally neutral way.

But let us consider for a moment some more of the shortcomings found in the broad Messianic world as it concerns the terms used to describe people in general. A fair majority of today’s Messianic community balks at using any degree of inclusive language, dismissing it as being the product of so-called “political correctness”—even though it is adhered to in part by many conservative evangelical Christians, and is actually reflected in much of David Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible (1998), as well as in the new Tree of Life Bible—The New Covenant (2011).[pp] What is the inclusive language debate? A big part of it is recognizing that there are some specific terms in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures where a masculine-centric rendering is less-than-accurate, especially given some of the changing dynamics of modern English speech. The major terms to be aware of include:

•      The generic adam and anthrōpos, can be better rendered with “humanity” or “humankind,” rather than “man” or “mankind”; or in the case of individuals, “human being(s),” “mortal(s),” or “person(s).”

•      The specific ish and anēr, relates to a person who is a man or of the male gender, and can sometimes refer to a husband.

•      The specific ishah and gunē, relates to a person who is a woman or of the female gender, and can sometimes refer to a wife.

Obviously, some renderings of these Hebrew and Greek terms are largely dependent on their usage in a passage. But in general when people at large are described, it is probably safe to say that calling them “men” has become more than a bit out of place in normal, everyday English language across the world. So even if a Bible version might use “men” when “people” is intended, such as where Yeshua calls His disciples to be “fishers of men[qq]” (Mark 1:17; cf. Matthew 4:19), we need to be geared toward speaking on these sorts of passages relating to “fish for people” (NRSV/NLT/TNIV). A key passage, where an inclusive language rendering will convey a far better and clearer understanding for Messianics, is where Ephesians 2:15 speaks of kainon anthrōpon, the “one new humanity” (NRSV/CJB), as opposed to “one new man.” Obviously, what the Father has brought about via the magnanimous work of His Son is to influence far more than just those of the male gender.

Once again, reality being what it is, not enough of today’s Messianic teachers and leaders may be sensitive to employing a little bit of inclusive language in their speech. In fact, more than a few Messianic leaders are probably some of the greatest offenders when it comes to not using any degree of inclusive language. I want you to know that I myself do not get upset when I see terms like “man” or “mankind” used to refer to the human race, because I do use them from time to time. Yet we do need to recognize the various limitations present in modern English speech, by only using terms like “man,” “men,” or “mankind.”

In the Twenty-First Century, we have more than a few Messianic voices who are still quite prone to using “men,” when in normal speech “people” is far more natural and preferable. Does it at all offend you when a Messianic speaker says—regardless of which slice of the broad Messianic movement in which the statement is made—says something like, “God is raising up men in this hour” and the audience is clearly mixed? Why would we not hear something more like, “God is raising up men and women in this hour” or “God is raising up people in this hour”? How would you feel if you were a woman and you heard terms like men, mankind, and brothers exclusively used? Speaking for myself, I know that I am offended when I only hear male-specific terms used, and I am a male!

Obviously, if some of today’s Messianic Believers cannot compute the fact that using male-centric terms exclusively might cause some discord—would they even be able to see that using a term like “Gentile” exclusively, might also create some angst?

The issue of the terms we use affects our historical readings of the Scriptures. How many of today’s Messianic Jews, even among those who are well-educated Bible teachers (with significant degrees), will say things along the lines of, “when God brought the Jewish people out of Egypt…”? Now it is certainly true that God brought the ancestors of today’s Jewish people out of Egypt, but it is largely and historically incorrect to use the term “Jew” or Yehudi to describe anyone prior to the dispersion of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. As the entry for “Jew” in IDB directs us,

“In the OT, [Yehudi] (‘Jew’) is not used for members of the old tribe of Judah or even to distinguish persons of the Southern Kingdom from those of the Northern Kingdom…It is scarcely used until the kingdom of Judah had survived N Israel (II Kings 25:25; Jer. 38:19; 52:28-30). In postexilic times ‘Jew’ refers to a subject of the Babylonian or Persian province of Judah or of the Maccabean state (Esth. 9:15-19; Neh. 4:1-H 3:33; Zech. 8:23; I Macc. 8:20; Jos. Antiq. XI.v.7).”[rr]

There is, of course, nothing wrong with using terms such as “Jew” or “Jewish,” provided that we are able to recognize when in Biblical history that Yehudi started being legitimately used, in association with the Southern Kingdom. The point to be taken is not that “Jew” is a bad terms to use; rather, “strictly speaking, it is anachronistic to use the term with reference to the Hebrews or Israelites of an earlier period” (ISBE).[ss] Yet many of today’s Messianic Jews were raised in an environment where the Ancient Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, to those who made up the populations of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, to those who returned from Babylon—were all “Jews.”[tt] Specificity in terms of Biblical history, for such people, is not only something that is overlooked, but it is actually reinforced in some Jewish teaching materials. The Orthodox Jewish ArtScroll Tanach, for example, renders Exodus 21:2 with, “If you buy a Jewish bondsman…,” when the source text clearly has Ivri or “Hebrew.” Its chart detailing the rulers, of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, is actually labeled to be “The Jewish Monarchy.”[uu] Even Stern’s Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish Bible may be said to have made a faux paux when labeling the Epistle to the Hebrews as “Messianic Jews,” when modern Hebrew New Testaments tend to have Ivrim, Hebrew for “Hebrews,” instead (for the Greek title Pros Hebraious).[vv]

Not paying attention to specific details in Biblical history, has enabled many throughout the Messianic world to say things along the lines of, “When Paul writes to the Gentiles in Letter XYZ…” While it may be true that there was a large, non-Jewish readership for many of Paul’s epistles, almost all of the Pauline letters are titled by a geographic-specific audience—in addition to having Jewish readers as well. Why would any of us ever speak in terms of Paul writing the Gentiles, when what we should be more tuned into is Paul writing the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonicans, etc.?[ww] Cultural and historical circumstances in places such as Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, and Colossae in the ancient Mediterranean world might factor into us understanding some difficult verses, and some of the location-specific issues ancient groups of Messiah followers faced.

In examining some Messianic Jewish teaching materials, they explained to me that the Commonwealth of Israel is made up of both the Jewish people and the Church, sort of like the British Commonwealth. They have actually said that as a non-Jewish Believer, I am really not a part of Israel, only the Commonwealth. Does this viewpoint have any legitimacy?

This entry has been adapted from the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic.

“[R]emember that you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).

In Ephesians 2:12 Paul uses ancient political terms to describe what his largely non-Jewish audience had been separated from. Prior to their faith in the Messiah, they were removed from tēs politeias tou Israēl. The key term here is politeia, “the right to be a member of a sociopolitical entity, citizenship” (BDAG).[xx] Yet, now having access to this citizenship, they have to start considering another part of politeia: “behavior in accordance with standards expected of a respectable citizen, way of life, conduct” (BDAG),[yy] something which surely dominates Ephesians chs. 4-6 (and has a definite Torah background). As David H. Stern remarks, “it implies an obligation to observe a godly life that has its origin in God’s relationship with the Jewish people. More than that, it implies an obligation to relate as family to the Jewish community to whom their faith has joined them…”[zz] He considers Ephesians 2:12 to relate to the inclusion of individuals like Ruth (Ruth 1:16) among Israel, and that it requires non-Jewish Believers “being involved with the Jewish people, both Messianic and non-Messianic.”[aaa] It would imply that non-Jewish Believers should have a relationship not only with their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters who have acknowledged the Messiah, but that they should take a keen interest in the well being of those Jews who have not yet acknowledged the Lord Yeshua.

Stern is absolutely right to say that non-Jewish Believers “who regard Jewish Christians as the strangers and themselves as the rightful possessors and those who accept Jewish believers but reject nonbelieving Jews, are not submitting to the message of these verses.”[bbb] Non-Jewish Believers, as made clear by Paul’s words, had no hope and were without God in the world without Israel. As the origin of their salvation is Israel, when bad things happen to the Jewish people, bad things happen to all of those who believe in Israel’s Messiah. When good things happen to the Jewish people, non-Jewish Believers should rejoice with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Non-Jewish Believers are called to befriend the Jewish people and be grateful to them, not only because of the spiritual heritage they have in the Synagogue, but also for the great contributions the Jewish people have made to the world.

Stern is proper to emphasize that non-Jewish Believers should not regard the Jewish people as alien or strange. But what happens when Jewish Believers treat non-Jewish Believers, who desire to grasp hold of their responsibilities as members of Israel’s Commonwealth, as strange or second class? This is a great dilemma, and one that has arisen in the past decade or so because of the significant growth of the Messianic movement among evangelical Christians. Taking hold of their Hebraic and Jewish Roots, non-Jewish Believers have often been treated with extreme suspicion, if not hostility at times, by some Messianic Jews. Is this appropriate? While non-Jewish Believers are to surely respect and support the Jewish people, what if Jewish people who know Messiah Yeshua (and presumably have been transformed by His love) do not treat them with such respect in return? Why at times do Messianic Jews not recognize them as a part of or even related to the “community of Israel” (Ephesians 2:12, NEB)?

While the spiritual roots of why some Messianic Jews might not recognize non-Jewish Believers in their midst as their equals is a complicated, and rather difficult subject to diagnose—the theological roots are quite easy to diagnose. There is a often a large misunderstanding and application of the term politeia, as employed here in Ephesians 2:12. Throughout various Messianic Jewish theological materials, it is taught that the Commonwealth of Israel is actually to be viewed as something similar to today’s British Commonwealth of Nations, a Commonwealth of Israel made up of two sub-groups: the ethnic Jewish people and the Church.[ccc] Messianic Jewish scholar David Rudolph claims that politeia “in the first-century Greco-Roman context could mean a community of nations or ethnic groups sharing a common allegiance to a monarch.” He considers the Commonwealth of Israel to be a broad federation or confederation made up of two groups: Israel and “the Church,” and that “commonwealth” is an ideal rendering of politeia, being “a relatively simple way of describing the relationship between the Church and Israel.”[ddd]

While the English term “commonwealth” may allow at times for one thinking of the people of God as akin to a British Commonwealth of Nations,[eee] with multiple independent states, the Greek term politeia in its classical usage does not easily allow for this. The Liddell-Scott lexicon, chiefly interested in classical Greek, defines politeia with:

•      the condition and rights of a citizen, citizenship

•      the life of a citizen, civic life

•      as a concrete, the body of citizens

•      the life and business of a statesman, government, administration

•      civil polity, the condition or constitution of a state

•      a republic, commonwealth[fff]

While these definitions surely do allow for an internally diverse community of people who should contribute to the well being of all, they do not lend support for a collection of multiple, largely autonomous and independent communities which make up a broad “commonwealth.” Consider the following examples from ancient classical and Jewish sources, which employ the term politeia. You will not see a single monarch ruling over a collection of separated, independent states implied:

POLITEIA IN ANCIENT USAGE

EPHESIANS 2:12

CLASSICAL REFERENCES[ggg]

remember that you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

He was one of the souls who had come from heaven, having lived his previous life in a well-governed state [en tetagmenē politeia], but having owed his goodness to habit and custom and not to philosophy... (Plato Republic 10.619c).[hhh]

A constitution [or politeia] may be defined as ‘the organization of a city [or polis], in respect of its offices generally, but especially in respect of that particular office which is sovereign in all issues’. The civic body is everywhere the sovereign of the city; in fact the civic body is the constitution itself [to politeuma tēs poleōs, politeuma d’ estin hē politeia] (Aristotle Politics 3.1278b).[iii]

The term ‘constitution’ [politeia] signifies the same thing as the term ‘civic body’ [politeuma]. The civic body in every city [polis] is sovereign [to kurion]... (Aristotle Politics 3.1279a).[jjj]

JEWISH REFERENCES

And to set before their eyes the injury that they had unjustly done to the holy place, and the cruel handling of the city, whereof they made a mockery, and also the taking away of the government of their forefathers [tēs progonikēs politeias] (2 Maccabees 8:17, KJV).

Among other things, we made known to all our amnesty toward their compatriots here, both because of their alliance with us and the myriad affairs liberally entrusted to them from the beginning; and we ventured to make a change, by deciding both to deem them worthy of Alexandrian citizenship [politeia] and to make them participants in our regular religious rites...[T]they not only spurn the priceless citizenship [politeia], but also both by speech and by silence they abominate those few among them who are sincerely disposed toward us; in every situation, in accordance with their infamous way of life, they secretly suspect that we may soon alter our policy (3 Maccabees 3:21, 23).

The Jews also obtained honours from the kings of Asia when they became their auxiliaries; for Seleucus Nicator made them citizens [politeia] in those cities which he built in Asia, and in the Lower Syria, and in the metropolis itself, Antioch; and gave them privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks, who were the inhabitants, insomuch that these privileges continue to this very day (Antiquities of the Jews 12.119).[kkk]

The classical Greek meaning of politeia (which I was certainly taught at the University of Oklahoma as a political science undergraduate), also witnessed in ancient Jewish works, does not imply a kind of citizenship where a single monarch rules over a collection of separate states, but rather speaks of either a single government or a way of conduct within a society (sometimes within the context of a city). Of critical importance to us are those notable places where politeia, and a related term like politeuma,[lll] appear in the Apostolic Scriptures, designating citizenship:

“The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship [politeia] with a large sum of money.’ And Paul said, ‘But I was actually born a citizen’” (Acts 22:28).

“For our citizenship [politeuma; ‘commonwealth,’ RSV] is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (Philippians 3:20).

Anyone who would try to equate the Greek term politeia with a kind of multiple nation-state commonwealth in mind, does not have strong support either from classical usage or Biblical usage of the term.

What Paul describes as Believers possessing politeuma in Heaven, should not escape our notice. No one would honestly argue, for example, that born again Believers have different kinds of “citizenship” within the Kingdom of Heaven; it is all the same citizenship. Some might represent themselves as citizens of God’s Kingdom better than others, and some Believers do not always take advantage of all the spiritual benefits of being citizens of God’s Kingdom—but all who profess Yeshua are still citizens of the same Divine state. The difficult concept that many Believers have to recognize is that God’s Kingdom happens to be Israel. Today’s Messianic Jews need to understand that while they are honored and respected members of this Israel to be sure (cf. John 4:22; Romans 3:1-2; 11:29), they are not at all the only members. The Commonwealth of Israel is to be viewed as a single state ruled by the King Messiah, but one which is internally diverse in terms of its ethnic makeup. The non-Jewish Believers were at one time “strangers to the covenants of promise” plural, tōn diathēkōn tēs epangelias, and having been integrated into the community of Israel are to look at Israel’s story as their own story (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1).

It is sad to say, but many of today’s Messianic Jews have forgotten the citizenship responsibility placed on Ancient Israel for it to be a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations (Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 42:6; 49:6), with the imperative ki-li kol-ha’eretz, “because for Me (is) all the Earth” (Exodus 19:5; my translation). Notably, a part of having citizenship in Israel—whether native born or not—is being a conduit of God’s light to others. What kind of a testimony would (or will) it be if non-Jewish Messianic Believers are those who fulfill this calling better than a number of today’s Messianic Jews? Is today’s Messianic community due for a major shaking in the future, as our Heavenly Father looks for willing vessels able to accomplish His mandate for Israel? If today’s Messianic Judaism, or parts of it at least, continue on a path toward wanting the Commonwealth of Israel to be defined in terms other than being a single yet internally diverse people of God, how much will it really achieve for Him? It may achieve some things, but surely not as many as it could.

NOTES

[a]

“Noahides,” in Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 456.

[b] This does not, however, mean that such non-Jewish Believers need to live as culturally “Jewish” in all aspects of their lives. While Jewish tradition should have a role in one’s Torah observance, there are many aspects of Jewish culture that do not have to be followed by non-Jewish Believers, mostly regarding non-congregational related issues.

[c] Consult the article “One Law for All” by J.K. McKee, for a discussion of the related passages that somehow speak of “one law,” “one statute,” etc., and the controversy present over in today’s broad Messianic movement.

[d] Cf. Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), pp 376-377.

[e] The prohibitions of the Apostolic decree of Acts 15:19-21 are best thought of as being those areas where the First Century Jewish community was unwilling to compromise or be lenient toward outsiders. The prohibitions issued by James the Just would require the new, non-Jewish Believers to effectively cut themselves off from their old, pagan spheres of social interaction, making their new spheres of social interaction those who followed Israel’s Messiah (Jewish Believers) or at least Israel’s One God (the Jewish community).

Consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee for more information.

[f] “And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to command his grandsons with ordinances and commandments and all of the judgments which he knew. And he bore witness to his sons so that they might do justice and cover the shame of their flesh and bless the one who created them and honor father and mother, and each one love his neighbor and preserve themselves from fornication and pollution and from all injustice. For on account of these three the Flood came upon the earth. For (it was) because of fornication which the Watchers, apart from the mandate of their authority, fornicated with the daughters of men and took for themselves wives from all whom they chose and made a beginning of impurity” (O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2 [New York: Doubleday, 1985], pp 69-70).

[g] “Concerning seven religious requirements were the children of Noah admonished: setting up courts of justice, idolatry, blasphemy [cursing the Name of God], fornication, bloodshed, and thievery” (Jacob Neusner, trans., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew With a New Introduction, 2 vols. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 2:1291-1292).

[h] David Instone-Brewer, “Infanticide and the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52 No. 2 (2009):308.

[i] HALOT, 1:183.

[j] BDB, 156.

[k] BDAG, 276.

[l] LS, 226.

[m] K.L. Schmidt, “éthnos,” in TDNT, 201.

[n] Richard E. Higginson, “Gentiles,” in Everett F. Harrison, ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), 235.

[o] A. van Selms, “Gentile,” in ISBE, 2:443.

[p] BDAG, 276.

[q] Most modern Bibles (RSV, NASU, NRSV, ESV, CJB) follow the textual variant hoti ha thuei ta ethnē, which as Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 560 points out, is “considered to be an ancient gloss” in the event that anybody errantly thinks that the sacrifices of the Jerusalem Temple are somehow being referred to (1 Corinthians 10:18).

[r] The Complete Jewish Bible, follows suit with the RSV and NIV quoted here, using “pagans.”

1 Corinthians 12:2 in the NASU, interestingly enough, says “You know that when you were pagans [ethnē], you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.”

[s] McKim, 113.

[t] HarperCollins Latin Concise Dictionary (Glasgow: HarperCollins, 1997), 94.

[u] Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary, 60.

[v] HarperCollins Latin Concise Dictionary, 138.

[w] “the region of the nations” (ATS).

[x] Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, German-English (Berlin and Munich: Langenscheidt KG, 1995), 275.

[y] The term Kreis should be understood here as “adm. district” (Ibid., 372), which is certainly allowable as the Hebrew galil can mean “cylinder, rod, circuit, district” (BDB, 165).

[z] Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, 441.

[aa] William D. Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 597.

In Ibid. his further conclusion is, “By proclaiming the gospel to all the authorities in Rome, Paul has now preached to all groups and all types of Gentiles and therefore has fulfilled his ministry.”

[bb] Philip H. Towner, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 643.

[cc] Matthew 6:32 could also be considered: “For the Gentiles [ta ethnē] eagerly seek all these things…” This is also rendered with “pagans” (NIV/CJB) and “idolaters” (HCSB) elsewhere.

[dd] A. van Selms, “Gentile,” in ISBE, 2:444.

[ee] Editorial Staff, “Gentile,” in EJ.

[ff] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004), 220.

[gg] Jacob Neusner, ed., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew With a New Introduction, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 2:1269.

[hh] Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz, eds., Complete ArtScroll Siddur, Nusach Ashkenaz (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1984), pp 18-19.

[ii] In complete fairness, it must be stressed that another edition of this same prayer, does not use the Hebrew term goy. This is seen in Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorised Daily Prayer Book, revised (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1960), 18:

“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a heathen [asani nakri].”

The Hebrew nakri largely means, “foreign, alien” (BDB, 648).

[jj] Jules Harlow, ed., Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2007), 65.

[kk] For a further discussion, consult the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[ll] “Gentiles,” in Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, pp 247-248.

[mm] Ibid., 248.

[nn] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Crucifixion.”

[oo] Toby Janicki. “What is a Gentile?” Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009/5770:44.

[pp] Other Bible versions that employ a principle of inclusive language, to one degree or another, include: the New Revised Standard Version (1989), the Revised English Bible (1989), and the Today’s New International Version (2005).

[qq] Grk. alieis anthrōpōn.

[rr] J.A. Sanders, “Jew,” in IDB, 2:897.

[ss] W.W. Gasque, “Jew,” in ISBE, 2:1056.

[tt] In the annotation for John 4:22-24, appearing in Daniel Gruber, trans., The Messianic Writings (Hanover, NH: Elijah Publishing, 2011), 148, it is actually stated, “After the Babylonians exiled the Jewish inhabitants of Shomron [Samaria], they brought other captive people to live there. (2K 17:22-41).”

This statement is not at all true to history, and even the text of 2 Kings 17:22-41 itself, as it details the exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, not the Babylonians. Yet, these kinds of remarks litter the Messianic Jewish spectrum, and often go unnoticed by even those leaders who have weighty post-graduate degrees.

[uu] Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz, eds., ArtScroll Tanach (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1996), 2026.

In contrast, JPS Guide: The Jewish Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 188 correctly refers to “The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.”

[vv] The Phillips New Testament has also incorrectly labeled the Epistle to the Hebrews as “The Letter to Jewish Christians.”

[ww] You do probably need to be aware of the textual issues in Ephesians 1:1, and how “in Ephesus” (en Ephesō) does not appear in the oldest manuscripts (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 601). In all likelihood the Epistle of Ephesians was originally a circular letter written by the Apostle Paul to assemblies within Asia Minor, eventually making its way to Ephesus. The RSV notably rendered Ephesians 1:1 with: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.”

Specific Pauline letters that actually concern the Believers in Ephesus, are actually the Epistles of 1&2 Timothy, as Timothy served as Paul’s duly-appointed superintendent to Ephesus and the surrounding region. For more information, consult the entries for the Epistles of 1&2 Timothy in the author’s workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic.

[xx] BDAG, 845.

[yy] Ibid.

[zz] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), 582.

[aaa] Ibid.

[bbb] Ibid.

[ccc] Daniel C. Juster, Growing to Maturity (Denver: The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations Press, 1987), pp 221-222; David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 57; cf. Daniel C. Juster, Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995), 35.

[ddd] David Rudolph, “Mashiach” Verge Vol. 2, Iss. 2, February 2010:2.

[eee] The first definition of “commonwealth” in Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (Cleveland: Wiley Publishing, Inc, 2002) is, however, “the people of a nation or state” (p 123), implying a single body politic.

[fff] LS, 654.

[ggg] The Greek source text for these works has been accessed via the Perseus Collection <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/>.

[hhh] Plato: The Republic, trans. Desmond Lee (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 366.

[iii] Aristotle: Politics, trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 97.

[jjj] Ibid., 100.

[kkk] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 315.

[lll] Meaning, “the business of government, an act of administration” (LS, 654).

Often together, the related terms “[politeia] and [politeuma] are said to have the same force” (Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Vol. 42 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990], 137).

I am a non-Jewish Messianic Believer, and have been told that my calling as a “Messianic Gentile” is to go back to a church, and not become Torah observant. I am told that I must follow “Paul’s rule,” and that seeking to live more like Yeshua and His Apostles would violate both it and my distinct “calling,” and likely nullify God’s special calling on the Jewish people. I should instead simply help Christians in church, not too interested in their Hebrew Roots, be more favorable to Israel and Jewish issues. Can you please help me?

“Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the [assemblies]. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Messiah's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:17-24, NASU).

On the whole, 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, is a passage of elusiveness for most of today’s individual Messianic Believers. Bits and pieces of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 have been quoted here or there by various writers and teachers, but for the most part it tends to be something skipped over by Messianic Bible readers, much less probed for its theological and philosophical significance. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 has, however, been examined in some detail by various leaders within Messianic Judaism, and perhaps because of some of the conclusions drawn by them, 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 has been widely avoided or flat ignored by those within the more independent, Hebrew/Hebraic Roots Messianic sectors. The challenges presented by 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, are reflective of a more widescale avoidance, on the part of most of today’s broad Messianic movement, to examine the Epistle of 1 Corinthians—a letter, which in some ways, is even harder to understand than the Epistle to the Galatians.[a]

There are some deep, ethical questions asked of examiners of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, especially given how these verses have been abused in historical interpretation.[b] These verses have been used, at times, to justify retaining the institution of slavery, and to theologically chastise slaves trying to acquire freedom (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:21)—as though slavery were some kind of perpetual spiritual vocation that can never be altered. Likewise, this passage has been used to justify women staying in abusive marriage relationships, where there has been no adultery (cf. Matthew 5:32), but where there is still a hellish nightmare of a marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 has been used to oppose social mobility, as though extreme poverty is a spiritual vocation that cannot be changed, and that people should not try to really aspire to improve their conditions. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 has been used as a means for religious authorities to put various groups or sub-groups in their proverbial “place,” discouraging them from accomplishing their dreams and pursuits.

As we approach 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, and what some of the various issues are regarding “Paul’s rule,” J. Paul Sampley summarizes some of the extremes which need to be steadfastly avoided:

“Paul’s...counsel...[in 7:24] can be mistaken as a call to inaction, to do nothing, or even to embrace the status quo. There are circumstances that the gospel cannot abide and we must be unmistakably clear about that. For example, no one should remain in a physically or emotionally abusive situation. The gospel does not call for one to do that. In a similar way, Paul’s counsel to ‘remain’ should not be used as a justification for not seeking better circumstances for oneself and an improvement of one’s circumstances.”[c]

1 Corinthians 7:17-24 are significantly loaded and complicated verses, not only because of how they have been abused in history—but also because of how readers and interpreters must approach them properly for their ideological and spiritual significance. These factors will involve not only a fair-minded recognition of an examiner’s presuppositions or vantage points going into the text, but also different English renderings of various verbs or clauses, as well as comparison with other Pauline passages. Three principal areas of discussion, which should affect any interpreter’s view of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, are going to concern:

1.  The right approach to the Greek noun klēsis, “calling” (1 Corinthians 7:20), and the related verb kaleō, “to call” (1 Corinthians 7:17, 18, 20, 21, 22 [2x], 24), and whether this should be approached as a social/spiritual vocation, or a calling by God into salvation and sanctification.

2.  A proper rendering of the Greek clause en tē klēsei hē eklēthē in 1 Corinthians 7:20 as something literal such as, “in the calling in which he was called” (TLV), or something which has a definite value judgment, such as “the state/condition/life situation in which he was called” (RSV/ESV/HCSB).

3.  The right approach to the Greek verb menō (1 Corinthians 7:20, 24), and whether it is best represented by a static English verb like “remain” (RSV/NASU/NIV/NRSV/ESV et. al.), or something a bit less static like “abide” (KJV/ASV).

To get an idea about some of the challenges of interpretation, alone, provided by properly translating 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, simply compare and contrast some of the similarities and differences between the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), and one of its successors, the 1995 New American Standard Update (NASU):

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24

ASV

NASU

[17] Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. [18] Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God. [20] Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. [21] Wast thou called being a bondservant? Care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather. [22] For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant. [23] Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. [24] Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.

[17] Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. [18] Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. [20] Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. [21] Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. [22] For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. [23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. [24] Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24—GREEK

[17] Ei mē hekastō hōs emerisen ho Kurios, hekaston hōs keklēken ho Theos, houtōs peripateitō. Kai houtōs en tais ekklēsiais pasais diatassomai. [18] Peritetmēmenos tis eklēthē, mē epispasthō en akrobustia keklētai tis, mē peritemnesthō. [19] Hē peritomē ouden estin kai hē akrobustia ouden estin, alla tērēsis entolōn Theou. [20] Hekastos en tē klēsei hē eklēthē, en tautē menetō. [21] Doulos eklēthēs, mē soi meletō all’ ei kai dunasai eleutheros genesthai, mallon chrēsai. [22] Ho gar en Kuriō klētheis doulos apeleutheros, Kuriou estin, homoiōs ho eleutheros klētheis doulos estin Christou. [23] Timēs ēgorasthēte mē ginesthe douloi anthrōpōn. [24] Hekastos en hō eklēthē, adelphoi, en toutō menetō para Theō.

The ASV, while including a wide amount of Elizabethan period English (although far less than the KJV), leaves an interpreter with a wider array of options and some more literal renderings—whereas the NASU has made some value judgments (see esp. 1 Corinthians 7:20, 24). These will be important to consider as we prepare to evaluate 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 in detail.

Readers and interpreters of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 generally have two broad options to consider, for what this passage means:

1.

The “calling” described by Paul is a Divinely-mandated vocation, in which Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, and those such as slaves, are to remain, and which should never really change.

2.  The “calling” is a Divine summons to salvation and sanctification in Yeshua. When called to salvation, each person is found in a different situation or status in life, and a change of status should not be enacted as a condition of being called to salvation. People should instead abide with God in His calling of them to redeeming faith.

Surveying a small selection of resources on 1 Corinthians, one will encounter Christian interpreters who approach 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 as the calling pertaining to a social/spiritual vocation.[d] More likely, though, one is prone to encounter those who think that a calling to salvation manifesting in one’s life circumstances, with such a station then being reckoned as some sort of social/spiritual vocation, is being described, sometimes with the details left a bit unclear or fuzzy.[e] The Messianic Jewish interpreters who have commented on this, have tended to take the “calling” in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, as not only being a social/spiritual vocation,[f] but one that is probably to be rigidly applied so that differences among God’s people almost totally eclipse the common faith we are to all have in Yeshua, and our basic human need for redemption.[g]

While it may be met with some resistance by various contemporary Christian positions, as well as trends in much of current Messianic Judaism—the view defended here will propose that 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 can only be best viewed, as presenting a “calling” to salvation and sanctification. One’s calling into Messiah faith is not contingent on a particular station in life or social status, and outsiders should not force change onto Believers, as some condition of their salvation. Paul’s rule is that each person is to “abide” in his or her calling, in God and His Messiah Yeshua, as it is the Lord who directs the paths of the faithful according to His will and plan.

ch. 7 The passage of the letter of 1 Corinthians, which concerns “Paul’s rule,” 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, is preceded by a wider discussion about marriage, and one that Paul notably says, concerned “the things about which you wrote” (1 Corinthians 7:1), in a previous, non-extant letter. The marriage issues concerned the mutual sexual needs of man and wife (1 Corinthians 7:2-6, 9), the advantage of someone like Paul being unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7-8), and what was to be done if a husband or wife was a non-Believer (1 Corinthians 7:9-16). The vignette detailing Paul’s rule, is then followed by a series of instructions regarding potential marriage of virgins (1 Corinthians 7:25-26, 29-38), current marriages in Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:27-28), and possible remarriages in Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:38-40). With Paul noting “the present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26), there are some situation-specific words in 1 Corinthians ch. 7 which are going to have to be considered by readers.

That we encounter Paul’s remark, “so I direct in all the [assemblies]” (1 Corinthians 7:17), the principles elaborated upon in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 would have been implemented by him in his ministry service across the board, as he dealt with the status of different groups within the Body of Messiah. As can be detected, given the diversity of marriage advice in 1 Corinthians 7:1-16, 25-40, while Paul did not actively encourage marriage here to his intended audience, neither did he forbid it, nor did he forbid married couples from being one in the Lord, nor did he actively encourage a believing spouse from leaving his or her non-believing wife. There is much that had to be considered, on the basis of what was best for one’s relationship and service to the Lord, such as whether a husband or wife could sanctify a marriage relationship, and bring a non-believing spouse to saving faith (1 Corinthians 7:14, 16).

[17] Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the [assemblies].

7:17 The two main statements made in 1 Corinthians 7:17, which will control much of the discussion and debate over “Paul’s rule,” are the Apostle’s assertion: hekastō hōs emerisen ho Kurios, hekaston hōs keklēken ho Theos. The two main verbs to consider are merizō, “deal out, assign, apportion” (BDAG),[h] and kaleō, “to call, summon” (LS).[i]

It is not difficult to see that there are particular stations in life where God has “assigned” or “distributed” (KJV; emerisen) people. Where differences of view rest are not on the various life situations where people are placed; differences of view rest with what is intended by Paul in terms of God’s “calling” (keklēken) of people, which is then enjoined with the direction: “so let him walk” (KJV), houtōs peripateitō. People are to walk out their calling, but is the calling synonymous with the station in life assigned to them?

There are those who will interpret 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 from the perspective that the station in life and calling are basically the same thing, with the calling of God to be viewed as a social/spiritual vocation. Alternatively, however, this passage can be viewed from the perspective that the calling of God is a call into salvation and sanctification, and 1 Corinthians 7:17 acknowledges how each person has been placed in a particular life situation distributed by God at the moment of their being called into salvation—but that people are to walk in their calling into a relationship with God, who then directs their paths. Craig Blomberg usefully observes,

“‘To which God has called him [NIV],’ is a misleading translation; the Greek actually reads, ‘as God called him.’ In other words, the entire verse implies that in whatever state we are when we come to the Lord, we should function faithfully in that state without immediately seeking to change it.”[j]

While there can be some resistance to it, the idea that the calling in view in 1 Corinthians 7:17, is a calling into salvation and sanctification, is textually supported by a statement made earlier by Paul in this very letter. In 1 Corinthians 1:9, he tells his audience, “God is faithful, through whom you were called [eklēthēte] into fellowship with His Son, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord.”

Examiners have certainly had to wrestle through the factors of whether or not the “calling” in 1 Corinthians 7:17ff (whether it appears here as the verb kaleō, or elsewhere as the noun klēsis), is a social/spiritual vocation, or a calling into salvation and sanctification. Grammatically speaking, Anthony C. Thiselton describes how “Paul’s most characteristic usages of [kaleō] and [klētos] refer to God’s act of having called to Christian salvation, which in Paul’s case (and not only his) coincided with his call to a task of service.”[k] Thiselton further states, “Isaiah’s use of... (qara) prepares the way for the notion of the people of God as the called in Rom 8:30 and 1QM 3:2; 4:10-11.”[l]

A rather general view of 1 Corinthians 7:17, in light of the previous usage of “calling” in the letter, is offered by F.F. Bruce. He asserts, “A man or woman’s social status is of minor importance: what matters is the fact that one has been called by God into his fellowship and service (cf. 1.9). To this calling the believer should remain faithful whatever his state of life may be.”[m] Sampley, focusing mainly on 1 Corinthians 7:17, draws the attention of readers and examiners to how the walking out of the gospel, is where the main attention and loyalty of Messiah followers is to be placed:

“Verse 17 and its echoes in v.20 and v.24 affirms that Paul expects persons, in all of his churches, to live, specifically to walk, the gospel in the circumstances where they were called, where the grace of God engaged them. Living the gospel is the primary concern. To put it differently, how they ‘walk’—that is, how they comport themselves—is the key issue. Location and setting are indifferent matters; one’s call is not. The gospel can flourish and be walked out in any circumstance, and the living of it elevates the person and the circumstance in which the person lives. Paul does not require believers to leave their social setting.”[n]

Gordon D. Fee also acknowledges the two points of how “The concept of call is first of all a way of describing Christian conversion. God calls people to be ‘in Christ’ (1:9).” He then goes on to note, “That call came to a person in a given social setting. This is the clear emphasis of all the verbs in this passage, especially as it is associated with various social options (vv. 18 [twice], 21, 22 [twice]).”[o] The steadfast focus of one’s calling, however, is to be placed on the proper way to walk—and not the station or circumstances of life where such a walk of faith is manifested or demonstrated. The TNIV rendering of 1 Corinthians 7:17, slightly paraphrased, draws the evaluation, “each of you should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to you, just as God has called you.”

The statement of 1 Corinthians 7:17ff, is something that the Apostle Paul says, “So I command in all the assemblies” (HNV). A basic, evangelical Christian conclusion drawn for this, by Bruce, is, “Paul’s rule in all the churches...was that a believer should be content to remain in the state of life in which he was at the time of his conversion—married or unmarried, circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free man.”[p] Simply consider a newly saved Corinthian Believer, raised Greek or Roman, still trying to work through and process the essentials of walking a life of faith in Israel’s Messiah—then having to immediately process the challenges of marriage, or some other significant life change.

While a change in one’s social standing, be it high or low, is not a prerequisite for one being called into salvation—can the possibility be left open for future changes? Fee deliberates how “the concern is with their social setting at the time of that call, which is now to be seen as that which ‘the Lord assigned to each.’ That does not mean that one is forever locked into that setting...by saving a person in that setting, Christ thereby ‘assigned’ it to him/her as his/her place of living out life in Christ.”[q] He goes on to assert the useful thought, “Paul’s intent is not to lay down a rule that one may not change; rather, by thus hallowing one’s situation in life, he is trying to help the Corinthians see that their social status is ultimately irrelevant as such.”[r] One would assume that if a new Believer, called into Messiah faith in a particular social standing, that as further maturity in the Lord occurs in his or her spiritual relationship, that there certainly could—if not would—be many who change their social standing as He directs their walk. To disallow such change, and to consider 1 Corinthians 7:17ff as presenting rigid and inflexible directions, invites problems (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:21b).

We cannot deny that elsewhere in Paul’s letters, especially in a passage like Romans 11:29, that the “calling” in view is one of vocation, but whether the “calling” detailed in 1 Corinthians 7:17ff is a vocation—as opposed to a call into fellowship with God via His Son—should be further probed. While there is a history of interpretation,[s] going back to Martin Luther’s German Bible rendering of berufen, which would pertain to a vocation or profession,[t] we have to principally be focused on the text of 1 Corinthians, and other Pauline statements where “calling” is addressed.

[18] Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

7:18 Two questions are asked by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:18. “[If] having been circumcised anyone was called, let him not conceal [it]. In uncircumcision has anyone been called; let him not be circumcised” (Brown and Comfort).[u] While a debate present in other Pauline letters, there does not seem to be an issue present in Corinth over circumcision, and so to a degree this might be considered a somewhat ad hoc example for the issues Paul needed to address to the Corinthians. Disagreement ensues as to whether or not the statuses of circumcised and uncircumcised, concern a social/spiritual vocation, or the condition of a person when being called into Messiah faith.

The first question Peritetmēmenos tis eklēthē, mē epispasthō, obviously regards some sort of Jewish status. The verb peritemnō means “to cut or clip round about” (LS),[v] hence “to circumcise,” and widely renders the Hebrew mul in the Greek Septuagint. The noun form of “circumcision” is peritomē. More notable, perhaps, is the usage of the verb epispaō, “to pull the foreskin over the end of the penis, pull over the foreskin” (BDAG).[w] Epispasm was an ancient practice, seen during the Maccabean crisis, where Jewish males would “remove the marks of circumcision” (RSV), via a kind of foreskin restoration, of stretching the remaining skin that had not been cut, downward, forcing a new foreskin to grow. An ancient Jewish male, going through the process of epispasm, removing the sign of circumcision, committed the first major act of Hellenization—which subsequently involved abandoning the heritage of the Torah, abandoning the God of Israel, and embracing idolatry. The historical records of both the Apocrypha and Josephus testify to this[x]:

“From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil” (1 Maccabees 1:10-15).

“Therefore they desired his permission to build them a gymnasium at Jerusalem. And when he had given them permission, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they abandoned all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations” (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 12.241).[y]

While the crisis of epispasm certainly peaked during the Maccabean era—there should be no denying the fact that various Jews, in the time afterward, did in fact Hellenize, removing the marks of circumcision, so that they could be socially mobile in Greek and Roman pagan circles. These were Jews who would have abandoned not only their heritage, but would have apostatized from the God of Israel.

The second question asked in 1 Corinthians 7:18, en akrobustia keklētai tis, mē peritemnesthō, obviously regards some sort of non-Jewish status. While most often translated as “uncircumcision,” likely due to stylistic reasons in English Bibles (and the fact that sexual anatomy is not often specified as such), the term akrobustia more literally means “foreskin” (LS),[z] and rendered the Hebrew orlah in the Greek Septuagint. In the Apostolic Scriptures, Paul forbade the majority of the new, non-Jewish Believers, from being circumcised. His disciple Timothy was a notable exception, but he was already half-Jewish, and not being physically circumcised would have caused some unnecessary problems for Paul’s ministry activity among Jews (Acts 16:1-3). For those Greeks and Romans, who came to faith in Israel’s Messiah, the issue of going through the process of circumcision was not so much one of a medical procedure, but instead an issue of formally becoming a proselyte to Judaism. Much of this was associated with the widespread, ancient Jewish view, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come...” (m.Sanhedrin 10:1).[aa] Ethnic heritage was believed to automatically guarantee a Jew, and by extension a circumcised proselyte, eternal salvation.

While in the Messianic community, the period of the Maccabees gets a wide amount of attention, particularly during the season of Chanukah—what does not often get a huge amount of attention is what took place in the generation or so after the Maccabees reclaimed independence for Judea. Various Hasmonean leaders, who established their rule in the Land of Israel, did force non-Jews in places like Galilee, and Greek coastal cities such as Carmel or Gaza, to be circumcised and proselytized to Judaism. Some of this may have been religiously motivated, so that the presence of those Greeks in the region and immediate sphere of influence of Judea would not be a temptation for the Jewish people to fall into apostasy. Some of this may have been politically motivated, as Jewish leaders consolidated their power. And some of this might have been eschatologically motivated, as it could have been thought that massive numbers of pagans converting to Judaism would herald the arrival of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord. Scot McKnight summarizes,

“At certain periods in history certain Jewish movements, led by charismatic or politically powerful heroes, many conversions took place as the result of force. However triumphalistic the writers’ concepts might be, the conversions recorded in Judith (Jdt 14:10) and Esther (Esther 8:17) resulted from force. Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus each forced Gentiles to convert and be circumcised, even if they saw such as part of an eschatological program or political purgation (Josephus Ant. 13.9.1 §§257-58; 13.9.3 §§318-19; 13.15.4 §397; 15.7.9 §v254-54).”[bb]

There were obviously various, overly-conservative factions of Jewish Believers, within the First Century Body of Messiah, who wanted to see the Greek and Roman Believers circumcised as proselytes, so that they might be assured of salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). This is something that Apostles like Peter said was clearly inappropriate, as all—including Jewish Believers—are saved by the free grace of Yeshua (Acts 15:7-11).

The Apostle Paul drew the principle that he opposed Jewish Believers removing the mark of circumcision, most likely using an example from the Maccabean crisis of the Second Century B.C.E., and how it would lead to Jewish apostasy away from God. Why some Jewish Believers may have thought that circumcision for Jews was unnecessary is because Paul opposed non-Jewish proselyte circumcision (Galatians 5:11). If Greeks and Romans did not have to be circumcised, could Jewish Believers not be circumcised as well? Was, at least, the greater interaction between Jews, Greeks, Romans, and others in the Body of Messiah, an indication that the former needed to eliminate practices such as infant circumcision? A greater interaction between Jews and Greeks was the cause for much of the Maccabean crisis, and so Paul made it clear that Jewish Believers were to not practice epispasm, a major step toward abandoning their heritage. But this is followed by the even more important assertion that the uncircumcised were not to be circumcised.

Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:18 was undeniably conditioned by ancient circumstances. Paul could have opposed Greeks and Romans being circumcised because of the immediate fallout of the Maccabean crisis, with Hasmomean kings forcibly circumcising neighboring peoples—but even more so he would have opposed it because proselyte conversion was incorrectly thought, by many Jews, to assure a non-Jew, a definite place in the world to come (m.Sanhedrin 10:1). This is why the Apostolic Scriptures place such a high priority on circumcision of the heart, for all of God’s people—which not only includes Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, but also females (Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11, 13).

While there are examiners of 1 Corinthians 7:18 who will conclude that the “calling” of those who are circumcised, and those who are uncircumcised, pertains to some kind of a social/spiritual vocation—there are good reasons for us to disregard this view. In 1 Corinthians 7:17 preceding, where the general statement “as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each,” is elucidated—emerisen, “assigned,” is an aorist active indicative verb; and keklēken, “called,” is a perfect active indicative verb. Is it at all important that in 1 Corinthians 7:18 following, eklēthē, is an aorist passive indicative; and keklētai, is a perfect passive indicative—both being used for “called”? While it can be definitely debated, various passive verbs, in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, are to be regarded as Divine passives, where God and/or His Spirit are accomplishing an action.[cc] When being “called” (eklēthē / keklētai) is properly taken as being a calling into salvation by God (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:9),[dd] it is obvious that circumcision or uncircumcision status does not matter. And, various outside forces within the assembly are not to try to force stark changes on others, as some sort of precondition of their salvation—the most important being ritual proselyte circumcision for non-Jewish Believers.

[19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

7:19 The Apostle Paul actually writes in 1 Corinthians 7:19a, Hē peritomē ouden estin kai hē akrobustia ouden estin, “Being circumcised means nothing, and being uncircumcised means nothing” (CJB). Elsewhere in Paul’s letters, he does affirm the value of the rite of circumcision (i.e., Romans 2:25; 3:1-2), which would especially require here that a calling to salvation and sanctification (1 Corinthians 7:18) is the overarching issue being addressed regarding his “rule in all the assemblies.”

Imediately, though, readers can be a bit taken aback. While Jewish circumcision status, and non-Jewish non-circumcision/proselyte status—do not matter in terms of a calling by God into salvation—Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 7:19b, “what does mean something is keeping God's commandments” (CJB), or “keeping God’s commandments matters” (TLV). But is not being circumcised a commandment of Holy Scripture? Some, particularly in Messianic Judaism, have concluded that this regards various Torah commandments specifically applying to Jewish people, and others more generally to non-Jewish people.[ee] Yet, it needs to be interjected that while native Israelites and sojourners were not exactly the same in the Torah or Pentateuch, their obedience to God’s Law was intended to basically be the same, and all in the broad community were admonished to learn to keep all of the Torah (Deuteronomy 31:12). The only major difference of instruction for natives in Israel, who were those circumcised (Exodus 12:19, 48), was the right to eat of the Passover lamb, as well as being granted a tribal inheritance in the Land of Israel and the incumbent responsibilities of caring for such territory. Many ancient sojourners would be circumcised, be regarded as natives, and likely via intermarriage, have their descendants attain tribal territory in the Holy Land.[ff] In the post-resurrection era, all are to be regarded as citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, with the classification of sojourner or alien status largely reserved for the pre-resurrection time (Ephesians 2:19). In the future Messianic Age, while all will be circumcised—not all will be living in the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 44:9).[gg]

What really needs to be factored in, to understand Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians 7:19, is how previously in Galatians 5:6, he asserted, en gar Christō Iēsou oute peritomē ti ischuei oute akrobustia alla pistis di’ agapēs engergoumenē, “For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” And in Galatians 6:15, oute gar peritomē ti estin oute akrobustia alla kainē ktisis, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Given these two statements about circumcision and uncircumcision status, and the emphasis on “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6) and “a new creation” (Galatians 6:15), many have concluded that the major, intended thrust of “what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19b), pertains to those instructions which can decisively only be kept by a person who is born again, filled with God’s Spirit, and who is a certain beneficiary of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27).[hh]

The amount of ancient Jewish pride, widely due to the fallout of the Second Century B.C.E. Maccabean crisis, for the rite of circumcision,[ii] is detectable in Paul’s words of Romans 2:25-26: “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” A Jewish person can be circumcised, but still be regarded as a Torah-breaker. Circumcision or uncircumcision status does not matter if one transgresses God’s Torah, especially its high moral and ethical statutes (Romans 2:21-24). The Torah commandments to love God and neighbor,[jj] for example, can only be truly realized in a person who is abiding in God, and has redeeming faith in His Messiah (1 Corinthians 7:24, Grk.).

Unfortunately there are Christian interpreters, like Leon Morris, who have taken 1 Corinthians 7:19 to mean, “No ritual observance can be set alongside the keeping of God’s commandments.”[kk] Paul did not oppose the rite of circumcision for Jewish Believers, and even had to stop a false rumor about him that he taught that Jewish Believers should not circumcise their male children (Acts 21:20-22). He did, though, have to place a higher priority on various commandments which concerned a behavior reflective of those who had been called into a relationship with Yeshua. Sometimes, as in the case of Romans 2:25-26, it meant shaming the attitudes of various Jewish Believers who may have had an overly-inflated opinion or unbalanced view of circumcision.

The statement, of 1 Corinthians 7:19, was something which was a bit conditioned by a Second Temple Judaism that widely, although most incorrectly, thought that circumcision status/ethnic Jewish identity merited a place for someone in God’s Eternal Kingdom. This was the main reason why those like Paul forbade circumcision for the Greek and Roman Believers. This was not the medical operation that many millions of men have had in the European and American West since the Nineteenth Century. And, an injunction against circumcision for ancient Greek and Roman Believers—because of a Jewish tendency among many to think that it would merit salvation—should not be taken as a nullification of the futuristic reality that all people will be circumcised, of both heart and flesh, in the Messianic Age (Ezekiel 44:9).[ll] Such an eschatologically-rooted circumcision for non-Jewish Believers, while not too probable or likely to be observed in the First Century C.E., is something that can be practiced by today’s non-Jewish Messianic men (and for good hygiene).[mm] Circumcision status, even in contemporary Messianic Judaism, is rightly thought not to merit someone a place in the world to come.

[20] Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

7:20 Anyone who performs a little Inductive Bible Study, with 1 Corinthians 7:20, will see some (major) value judgments made across English Bible versions:

“Every one should remain in the state in which he was called” (RSV).

“Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” (NIV).

“Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called” (NRSV).

“Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (ESV).

“Each person should remain in the life situation in which he was called” (HCSB).

“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (KJV).

“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called” (ASV).

1 Corinthians 7:20 is a place where it is necessary for interpreters to adequately evaluate the source text: Hekastos en tē klēsei hē eklēthē, en tautē menetō. The Brown and Comfort Greek interlinear version renders 1 Corinthians 7:20 with, “each one in the calling in which he was called, in this let him remain.”

As discussed for the opening statements in 1 Corinthians 7:17, 18, there is divergence as to whether the “calling” in view for 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 pertains to a social/spiritual vocation, or to a calling by God of a man or woman into salvation and sanctification. It is not difficult to see, in most of the English versions above, with the exception of the KJV and ASV, that klēsis has been rendered as either “state” (RSV), “situation” (NIV), “condition” (NASU/NRSV/ESV), or “life situation” (HCSB). This is a certain value judgment on the part of Bible translators, whereas “calling” would be the most literal, leaving English readers the option of deciding whether what such a “calling” actually is.[nn]

Among more contemporary interpreters, Fee takes “calling” as having a dual meaning, remarking, “the word ‘calling’ here carries...[a] double nuance...Paul wants them to live out their Christian life (i.e., their ‘calling’ to Christ) in the situation (‘calling’) where they were when God called them to Christ.”[oo] While it is appreciable that Fee acknowledges the “calling” of most importance being one of being called into Messiah faith, this important element is decisively lost on Bible readers who are consulting modern versions, which while rendering klēsis as something akin to “situation” (NASB), may not have a footnote reading “Lit., calling.” (My Hebrew-Greek Key NASB, my main reading Bible, might be an exception to this.)[pp]

It should be obvious that however the verb menō is rendered (discussed further), “the calling in which he was called” is the more literal translation for en tē klēsei hē eklēthē. Equating klēsis with something like “condition” (NASU/NRSV/ESV/CJB) or “life situation” (HCSB) can skew one’s approach to what is intended by Paul’s assertion here. Once again, like in 1 Corinthians 7:19, the aorist passive eklēthē appears for “called,” which if taken to be a Divine passive, would lend strong support for “the calling in which he was called,” being God’s calling of a person into salvation and sanctification in Him. C.G. Kruse describes the general reality, in surveying the Pauline Epistles, is how “When Paul speaks about calling it is, more often than not, the calling of believers to faith and salvation that he has in mind.”[qq]

While there are many Christian interpreters, as well as Messianic Jewish leaders, who will take klēsis or “calling” in 1 Corinthians 7:20 as being some sort of social/spiritual vocation—the previous usage of the verb kaleō in 1 Corinthians 1:9 and the noun klēsis in 1 Corinthians 1:26, should logically affect how these terms are viewed later in Paul’s epistle:

“God is faithful, through whom you were called [eklēthēte] into fellowship with His Son, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9).

“For consider your calling [tēn klēsin humōn], brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Corinthians 1:26-27).[rr]

It is not difficult to conclude that in the Epistle of 1 Corinthians, klēsis and kaleō relate to a calling of God into salvation and sanctification.

Outside of Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians, the closest paralleling Pauline statement to en tē klēsei hē eklēthē, “the calling in which he was called,” undeniably appears in Ephesians 4:1-6:

“Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called [tēs klēseōs hēs eklēthēte], with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling [eklēthēte en mia elpidi tēs klēseōs humōn]; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:1-6).

While klēsis can pertain to a vocational calling, as it appears in Romans 11:29 per the irrevocable gifts and mandate that God gave to Israel,[ss] how klēsis is approached in 1 Corinthians 7:20 is affected far more by 1 Corinthians 1:26 and Ephesians 4:1, than tends to be commonly acknowledged. Earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:9, 26-27, and later in Ephesians 4:1-6,[tt] the “calling” being detailed is one of salvation and sanctification via the Divine activity of God on men and women.

Noting the literal rendering “‘in the calling with which he was called’ (cf. Eph. 4.1)” for 1 Corinthians 7:20, Bruce goes on to describe how “the ‘calling’ (Gk klēsis), as in 1.26, is the divine call from darkness to light...it is to this, not to one’s social status, that every one should remain faithful.” Noting that while there are interpreters who would disagree, Bruce further asserts, “There is no convincing evidence for taking klēsis...in the later sense of ‘vocation,’ with reference to one’s employment or way of life understood as the subject of divine ordination.”[uu] He makes mention of the example of how the one called into faith, as a slave, is to take the opportunity to become free when it avails him (1 Corinthians 7:21). The calling, to which every person is to be steadfastly loyal, is one of salvation and sanctification in the Lord—not a station in life, which may be altered at His sovereign direction.

One should be able to deduce how a translation like “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called,” can be abused by those in positions of religious authority—as though certain social places in life are those where people must stay, and never leave. Concurrent with the issues caused by improperly translating 1 Corinthians 7:20, with something other than the literal, “the calling in which he was called”—is how the verb menō is to be adequately rendered. Almost all modern versions render menō as “remain.” Yet, when some older versions are taken into consideration, we do encounter the more neutral rendering “abide” (KJV/ASV). When some theological factors regarding menō are weighed in, “abide” should be the preferred rendering for this verb in 1 Corinthians 7:20, and later in 1 Corinthians 7:24.

Various Greek lexicons have summarized the different translation options for menō, which interpreters need to know:

•      CGEDNT: “remain, stay, abide; live, dwell; last, endure, continue.”[vv]

•      TDNT: “This word means a. ‘to stay in a place,’ figuratively ‘to remain in a sphere,’ b. ‘to stand against opposition,’ ‘to hold out,’ ‘to stand fast,’ c. ‘to stay still,’ and d. ‘to remain,’ ‘to endure,’ ‘to stay in force.’”[ww]

•      BDAG: “in transf. sense, of someone who does not leave a certain realm or sphere: remain, continue, abide.”[xx]

The most neutral theological rendering for the verb menō, in 1 Corinthians 7:20, is “abide.” And when the verse is properly translated with, “the calling in which he was called,” with such a “calling” properly recognized as being called by God into salvation and holiness, “abide” is clearly the best rendering. This is further realized when various uses of the verb menō, as employed in the Gospel narratives of Yeshua, are considered, in particular John 15:4-9:

“Abide [meinate] in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides [menē] in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide [menēte] in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides [menōn] in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide [menōn] in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide [meinēte] in Me, and My words abide [meinē] in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide [meinate] in My love” (John 15:4-9).

While some modern versions actually translate menō as “remain” (i.e., NIV, HCSB, as well as YLT), the clear advantage of rendering menō as “abide” is obvious. The necessity of Believers abiding in the Lord Yeshua is that as the Vine, He provides one the nutrients and ability to grow spiritually. Abiding in the Lord is not a process where one remains stagnant and spiritually under-developed—but instead where those abiding in Him are to grow, mature, and develop more in their knowledge of Him and His love. As such maturity takes place, there are doubtlessly many positive changes which are to occur regarding how people understand their calling into salvation, the great wisdom of God and His Creation, and the potential role (or roles) that such individuals may play via His direction and guidance.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament summarizes some of the theological significance of the Greek verb menō and people abiding in Messiah:

“Of particular theological relevance is the use of [menō] in the immanence formulas of the Johannine literature. Jesus challenges his followers to abide in him (John 15:4-7), as he also abides in them (v. 5, reciprocal immanence formulas; cf. also 6:56 [Church redaction]). In 1 John the immanence formulas (2:6, 24, 27f.; 3:6, 24; 4:12f., 15f.: sometimes reciprocal) refer to one's abiding in God or in Christ, sometimes in the ind. and sometimes in the imv. (cf. also 3:9: ‘his seed abides in him’; 3:17: ‘the love of God abides in him’). This involves an abiding as in a realm or a sphere, but is not to be understood in a mystical sense. One may note a partial correspondence between the reciprocal formulas and Paul's alternation between [en Christō] and [Christos en hēmin].”[yy]

There is no denying the advantage, when the “calling” of 1 Corinthians 7:20, is properly evaluated to be the calling of a man or woman into salvation and sanctification—of translating the verb menō as “abide.” There are key usages of the verb menō, in relationship to people abiding in a relationship with Yeshua, which is something in view in 1 Corinthians 7:20 as well: “Let each one abide in the calling in which he was called” (my translation). This is to be an individual’s relationship with the Lord, where no outside influence or caustic force in the assembly is to try to interfere with His special work, especially in terms of placing human pre-conditions on a person being called into salvation.

[21] Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. [22] For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Messiah's slave. [23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

7:21-23 In the midst of the discussion pertaining to Paul’s “rule in all the assemblies” in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, is an example of what was to be done regarding ancient slaves. Paul inquires, “Were you called as a slave? Don’t let that bother you—but if indeed you can become free, make the most of the opportunity” (1 Corinthians 7:21, TLV). Some might be prone to take the being “called” (represented by the aorist [Divine] passive eklēthēs) as a social/spiritual vocation—and there are those in history who have not only taken slavery as a social/spiritual vocation, but who have errantly argued that it was a status which few could leave, and that the institution of slavery should not/never be abolished. This should be immediately disregarded, because Paul asserts, “if you are able also to become free, rather do that” (NASU). The being “called” in view is best taken to be the calling of an ancient slave into salvation and sanctification, further specified as being “called in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:22). A status of slavery in life has undoubtedly been assigned by God (1 Corinthians 7:17)—but it is a status, for the ancient First Century slave, which should have been changed if the opportunity for freedom presented itself. A calling into salvation and sanctification, though, can be manifested in a position of slavery, given the likelihood that many First Century Believers in the Mediterranean basin, who were also slaves, may not have been given freedom. Paul further asserts,

“For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave is the Lord’s freeman. Likewise the one who was called while free is Messiah’s slave” (1 Corinthians 7:22, TLV).

A status in life, such as being a slave or being free, does not matter in terms of being “called in the Lord,” en Kuriō klētheis, as both are spheres where people can represent Him and behavior that reflects their calling by Him into redemption. Yet, there is a major difference between the free person, who when called into faith, may be regarded as the Messiah’s slave—and the one who was called into faith while being a slave owned by some other mortal person. No matter how some of these verses may have been abused in history (i.e., 1 Corinthians 7:20, 24), the Apostle Paul is hardly one who opposed social mobility, and he was subversive to ancient First Century norms when it came to the issue of slavery. He candidly states, “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters” (1 Corinthians 7:23, NRSV). The work of the gospel in saving all people, slave or free, is something that was to work its way in society in people not owning other people, seeing the eventual abolishment of the practice. It is a sad shame that even in our Twenty-First Century world, forms of slavery still exist in the third world.

[24] Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

7:24 The closing statement to what has been regarded as “Paul’s rule in all the assemblies,” closely mirrors that of what was asserted previously in 1 Corinthians 7:20, but there are some rendering issues. Here are a variety of contemporary English translations of 1 Corinthians 7:24, from the same versions we quoted previously:

“So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God” (RSV).

“Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to” (NIV).

“In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God” (NRSV).

“So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God” (ESV).

“Brothers, each person should remain with God in whatever situation he was called” (HCSB).

“Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God” (KJV).

“Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God” (ASV).

1 Corinthians 7:24 is a place where it is necessary to turn to the source text for the appropriate answer regarding what is being summarized. A version like the NASU notably has indicated added words in italics, which can escape the notice of readers who do not access English Bible versions with this feature: “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called” (NASU).[zz] Here, the value judgment of klēsis for 1 Corinthians 7:20 representing “condition” (NASU), is repeated. Other versions, as listed above, do not make such an indication for English readers.[aaa] Versions like the KJV and ASV have “wherein he is/was called,” with no additional words. The Brown and Comfort Greek interlinear offers “each one in what [position] he was called, brothers, in this let him remain with God,”[bbb] for Hekastos en hō eklēthē, adelphoi, en toutō menetō para Theō. Here, the added word, “position,” has been placed in brackets [].

The assertion of 1 Corinthians 7:24 is similar, but not exactly the same, to 1 Corinthians 7:20. Interpreters can be left wondering how to best render hekastos en hō eklēthē, given the presence of the relative pronoun hō. Bruce indicates how this clause is “lit. ‘each wherein he was called’,” further remarking, “the rendering state is more permissible here than in verse 20.”[ccc] Because of the presence of the relative pronoun hō, Bruce draws the conclusion that the “calling,” or klēsis of 1 Corinthians 7:20, can be extended a bit to incorporate one’s life circumstances when called into redeeming faith:

“In this case the sentence is very close to v. 20, with two modifications: (1) the phrase ‘in the calling’ is replaced by the relative pronoun ‘in whatever’; (2) the imperative is modified by the prepositional phrase ‘with God’...Both of these changes seem to verify our interpretation of vv 17 and 20, that simultaneously Paul is referring to one’s situation when called and to God’s call.”[ddd]

This conclusion is similar to those of other evangelical Christian interpreters previously referenced, where God’s calling people into faith manifests in one’s life circumstances functioning, as at least a semi-spiritual vocation.

The issue regarding hekastos en hō eklēthē, “in that in which he was called” (YLT), is actually more complicated than some may realize. Rather than the dative (case indicating indirect object) feminine noun klēsei being repeated from 1 Corinthians 7:20, what appears instead is the dative (case indicating indirect object) neuter relative pronoun hō. In his textbook Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace describes how “the relative pronoun (RP) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case is determined by the function it has in its own clause.”[eee] Technically speaking, for 1 Corinthians 7:20 and 7:24, the feminine klēsei should be followed by the feminine relative pronoun hē.[fff] What appears instead is the neuter hō. Is this a problem? Wallace actually does detail how there are exceptions to the rule, stating, “Not infrequently relative pronouns do not follow the basic rules of agreement. Sometimes the gender of the RP does not match that of the antecedent, usually because of sense agreement superseding syntactical agreement.”[ggg] So, it should not seem to be that big an issue for the neuter hō representing the feminine klēsei.

What this does for an interpreter is to bring us back to the same challenge which had to be evaluated for 1 Corinthians 7:20: Is the calling/klēsis in view, a social/spiritual vocation, or a calling to salvation and sanctification? Feasibly, modifying the NASU rendering, 1 Corinthians 7:24 could be translated with, “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that calling in which he was called.” Paul does conclude 1 Corinthians 7:24 with, en toutō menetō para Theō: “therein abide with God” (ASV). Here, the answer that we provided for 1 Corinthians 7:20, about “abiding” (Grk. verb menō) in the “calling”—representing one’s calling into salvation and sanctification—is validated. A Believer, having been called into Messiah faith, is to decisively abide with God in relationship and communion with Him.

7:17-24 Paul’s rule in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 is not that people are to remain stagnant and unchanged in a particular station in life that they perpetually occupy; Paul’s rule is that people are to be abiding in the calling of God to salvation and holiness, who will then direct any changes to one’s status as appropriate. The ancient slave, when presented the opportunity to become free (1 Corinthians 7:21), was to surely take it. Likewise, how many other opportunities would be presented to ancient Believers—where they were called to Messiah faith in a particular life condition, such as being poor, oppressed, or in a nightmarish marriage relationship—who as they prayed to God to fix things, would give them a way out? When an opportunity presented itself, were they not supposed to take it? We should not find a huge amount of problems with Morris’ view, “We should serve God where we are until he calls us elsewhere...[Paul] is not counselling an attitude of passive resignation, an acceptance of the established order at all costs.”[hhh]

The conclusions drawn in our examination of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 are reflected in the following author’s rendering, modified from the 1901 American Standard Version:

“[17] Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, so let him walk. And so I direct in all the assemblies. [18] Was anyone called being circumcised? Let him not practice epispasm. Has anyone been called in foreskin? Let him not be circumcised. [19] Circumcision is nothing, and foreskin is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. [20] Let each one abide in the calling in which he was called. [21] Were you called as a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather use it. [22] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave, is the Lord's freed one; likewise he who was called while free, is Messiah's slave. [23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human beings. [24] Brothers and sisters, let each one, in that calling in which he was called, in this abide with God” (1 Corinthians 7:17-24, author’s rendering).[iii]

1 Corinthians 7:17-24 and Today’s Messianic Movement

How are today’s Messianic Believers to approach 1 Corinthians 7:17-24? This passage has been too frequently avoided by Messianic laypersons, who are widely unaware of the different translation and perspective issues relating to “calling.” They are being widely caught unaware, by how various Messianic Jewish leaders of note are applying 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 in a way to make sure that Jewish and non-Jewish Believers rigidly know what their differences are. Suffice it to say, even though things are already complicated enough with much resentment and suspicion among many groups of people in the broad Messianic movement, here in the decade of the 2010s—there is likely to be a new (lamentable) wave of it, substantially caused by those who fail to recognize that the “calling” described in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 is a calling to salvation and sanctification, and not a social/spiritual vocation. Those in positions of influence, who are prone to espouse their position, will not be too likely to engage that much with the source text, and instead will argue almost exclusively from various English versions.[jjj]

Many Messianic Jewish interpreters will look at Paul’s word of 1 Corinthians 7:18a, “Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised,” from the perspective that being circumcised, i.e., being Jewish, is a social/spiritual vocation which is not to be abandoned. Messianic Jews have mainly used this, and understandably so, as a means to combat the tendency in far too much of past history, that when Jewish people came to faith in Yeshua, they were to give up their Jewishness. Many Jewish Believers of the past have assimilated away into Christianity, no longer circumcising their sons, remembering the Sabbath or appointed times, or eating kosher. Being enjoined with intermarriage, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of such Jewish Believers often have not had either an appreciation of, or perhaps even knowledge of, their Jewish heritage. It is absolutely appropriate for Jewish Believers to oppose this sort of assimilation. But is 1 Corinthians 7:18a the place to base it from? Not if the calling in view is a calling to salvation and sanctification. Paul says elsewhere, in Romans 3:1-2 for example, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.”

As we have just argued, with a calling of God into salvation in view, for 1 Corinthians 7:18a, Paul opposes epispasm as it would have decisively led to apostasy, per the Maccabean crisis (1 Maccabees 1:10-15). A prohibition for Greek and Roman Believers called into salvation, to go through ritual proselyte circumcision, does not mean an exemption for Jewish Believers to stop circumcising their sons.

Paul’s further assertion in 1 Corinthians 7:18b, “Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised,” with uncircumcision, i.e., not being Jewish, taken to be a social/spiritual vocation, is now being turned onto today’s non-Jewish Believers who are being led into Messianic congregations, and desiring to live a life of Torah obedience, in emulation of Messiah Yeshua. Such a vocational “calling,” to which non-Jewish Believers are believed to be assigned by God, does not really involve them ever keeping things like the seventh-day Sabbath, appointed times of Leviticus 23, or a kosher style of diet[kkk]—and many non-Jewish Believers in Messianic congregations, probably need to return to a more standard church setting. If such things were to ever be observed, they are believed to only be important as a matter of living in solidarity with the Jewish people, but not as a matter of obedience expected by God of all of His people. If Sabbath-keeping or kosher eating were kept for a reason other than solidarity with the Jewish people, distinctions between Jews and non-Jews are believed to be blurred or erased.[lll] This understandably can get many non-Jewish Messianic Believers greatly upset, especially when they are fully committed to being a part of the Messianic community, including living in solidarity with the Jewish people. It is as though living a Torah obedient life does not have that much to do with their own spirituality or growth in the Lord.

As we have just argued, with a calling of God into salvation in view, for 1 Corinthians 7:18b, Paul opposed non-Jewish Believers being circumcised as proselytes, because it would feed the idea that such circumcision was necessary for salvation. A common idea present in Second Temple Judaism was, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come...” (m.Sanhedrin 10:1),[mmm] something resolved at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1, 5) with the decree that four prohibitions had to be followed by the new, non-Jewish Believers (Acts 15:19-21, 29), with Tanach prophecy in the process of fulfillment (Acts 15:15-18). Such prophecy would have doubtlessly included the nations coming to Zion to be taught God’s Torah (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4), and when followed the Apostolic decree would sever the Greek and Roman Believers from their old pagan spheres of influence, and see them attached to a community where Moses was being taught every week (Acts 15:21). The promised New Covenant was to see God’s Instruction supernaturally transcribed onto the hearts and minds of His people (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27),[nnn] not forced onto people via the demands of mortals. On the contrary, all are to abide in the calling into salvation (1 Corinthians 7:20, 24), and allow God to direct them according to His sovereign will. And in the Last Days to be certain, people from the nations were to decisively join with the Jewish people, as one composite people of God (cf. Zechariah 8:23).

Romans 11:29 makes it quite clear that God has placed a special vocational calling onto the Jewish people: “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” This is an eternal distinction that can never be removed from them, even with all Messiah followers being a part of a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation as well (1 Peter 2:9-10). But, the “calling” being described in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 is a calling into salvation and sanctification by God, and is directly affected by passages like 1 Corinthians 1:9, 26 and Ephesians 4:1-6. This is something which has not been taken as serious as it should be, by enough of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders.

If, as we have proposed, “Let each one abide in the calling in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:20, author’s rendering), is the appropriate way to approach Paul’s “rule in all the assemblies”—what would it mean for ancient Jewish Believers to have abided in their calling to salvation and sanctification? Presumably, it would mean a greater manifestation of God’s grace and wisdom, as seen in the Tanach, demonstrated toward others; a better understanding of such Believers’ Jewish heritage and how it could be used to educate and enrich others; and most importantly a better appreciation for God’s sovereign direction of Israel through the centuries and His plans for restoring the Kingdom. To go through epispasm (1 Corinthians 7:18a) would be throwing this, and many more things, on the proverbial garbage heap.

What would it mean for an ancient Greek or Roman Believer to “abide in the calling in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:20, author’s rendering)? Presumably, it would be manifested in a better understanding of their salvation via Israel’s Messiah as those from the nations; a better understanding of and commitment to studying Israel’s Scriptures; a further probing of God’s plan for bringing knowledge of Himself to the world, and how Jewish and non-Jewish Believers together, can enlarge such a mission; a better understanding of and commitment to, obedience to the commandments of God via His Holy Spirit; and participation in the restoration of His Kingdom on Earth, which is to culminate in the Messiah’s return. Being circumcised as a proselyte was entirely incompatible as a pre-condition of being called into salvation, per ancient Jewish issues with it (m.Sanhedrin 10:1).[ooo] Being circumcised in conjunction with future eschatological realities would not have been too likely for the First Century Greek and Roman Believers (cf. Ezekiel 44:9), but it can be observed today by non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic world, where circumcision is decisively not a salvation issue.

Because of religious politics and entangling alliances and the group-think mentality, being what they are for much of the Messianic community, one should not expect 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 to be approached from the perspective of a calling into salvation and sanctification by too many Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers. On the contrary, one should not only expect some of the most rigid social/spiritual vocational calling perspectives possible to manifest, but also a retreading of the tired old complimentarian line that we are all “equal in salvation, but different in roles.”

While we should not be led to naively think that each one of us is exactly the same—as natural distinctions among people will always exist—an “equal in salvation, different in roles” perspective has been used in the past to justify slavery, or permit bad things to happen to people, falsely believing that a person’s station in life was/is a Divine vocation that cannot (ever) change or be altered. It has been most recently been used in Christianity to deter women from pursuing religious educational opportunities and leadership positions in the Body of Messiah. While today’s Messianic Jewish leaders, who have a social/spiritual vocation view of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, are not trying to validate slavery or support a denigration of women—their incorrect interpretation can deter or delay much of the work of God, which is manifesting, in stark reality, on the ground in many of their own congregations (i.e., Zechariah 8:23). And no one should ever want to be found actually impeding salvation history...

Those who hold to 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 speaking to a calling by God into salvation and sanctification, have a definite responsibility to demonstrate “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6) and what it means to be “a new creation” (Galatians 6:15), to those with whom we might disagree. While many of our acknowledged Messianic “leaders” might not “get it”—many individual Messianic people most certainly will and do!

I am a non-Jewish person involved in the Messianic movement. I get a little nervous when I see some Messianic Jews talk about how Biblical faith is Judaism. Do you think that Biblical faith is Judaism?

From a strict textual perspective examining the Holy Scriptures, the concept of faith (Heb. emunah; Grk. pistis) has no real label—be that label Judaism, Christianity, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Catholic, Protestant, evangelical, charismatic, etc. At best, any labels that people have associated with their belief in God, the Holy Scriptures, and certain values and traditions they hold dear, are so that they can be associated with other people who likewise share the same views. These labels even include calling oneself “Messianic.” While it is not wrong at all for human-applied labels to be associated with a religious group or sect or particular ideology, the God of Creation and Messiah faith will ultimately be found to transcend them. Even with many religious movements, denominations, and groups in history possessing many positive and edifying perspectives and customs—many of them to be genuinely regarded as Holy Spirit-inspired—the Lord is obviously much bigger than them all!

Many non-Jewish Believers involved in the Messianic movement can be a little taken aback, when they see Messianic Jews say that they are either practicing Judaism, or that Biblical faith is Judaism. Obviously, it does need to be considered that to a variety of Messianic Jews, asserting that they are practicing Judaism, or that Biblical faith is Judaism, may have a certain meaning to some and a different meaning to some others. To some Messianic Jews, asserting that they are practicing Judaism—while obviously recognizing Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah—means that they have not had to give up on their ethnic and cultural heritage of being Jewish, and that Biblical practices that have been undoubtedly associated with the Jewish people throughout history do not have to be discarded. To believe in the Jewish Messiah hardly means that a Jew stops being Jewish. To other Messianic Jews, asserting that they are practicing Judaism means that their whole religious and spiritual construct is not only informed from the Second Temple Judaism of Yeshua and the Apostles’ day, or from later Talmudic Judaism, but even as far as the Jewish mysticism of the Middle Ages.

No one in any sector of the Messianic movement needs to be hostile when Messianic Jews state, “Yeshua did not come to start a new religion.” Anyone in today’s Messianic community should be able to recognize that when the Messiah says that He came to fulfill the Torah (Matthew 5:17-19), this means that His mission was one of bringing the Father’s plan to full fruition—not one of abolishing His commandments.[ppp] There is no doubting that Yeshua of Nazareth was a Torah observant, First Century Jew—and that He even bid His followers to respect Pharisaical Jewish authority (Matthew 23:2-3).[qqq] That Yeshua practiced Judaism is an historically and theologically valid conclusion to make.

As always, though, the question needs to be posed: Do the teachings and actions of Yeshua ever go beyond, or transcend Judaism? When presented carefully and respectfully, there are many Messianic Jews today who will obviously have to answer “Yes” to this, as they do not want to be legitimately accused of placing God in any kind of a “box.” At the same time, there are other Messianic Jews who might take offense by the idea that God is bigger than Judaism.

It is fair to conclude that the majority of people who make up the broad Messianic movement, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, do rightly recognize that our Bible studies, exegesis, and faith application is significantly informed from Judaism. This means that when seeking to understand the First Century world of Yeshua, consultation of extra-Biblical literature such as the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Talmud, and the Midrashim is likely going to be necessary to some degree. Respecting the Jewish Synagogue and our Jewish theological and spiritual tradition is a given. Incorporating many customs and traditions in worship on Shabbat, our remembrance of the appointed times, employing prayers and hymns from the siddur, and other edifying practices from Judaism, are also witnessed. However, the Biblical text is still the first and final authority for us.

Areas of conflict are not necessarily over whether Messianic Believers practice a Biblical faith informed from Judaism. Areas of conflict are over whether Messianic Believers should be informed from Medieval Jewish mysticism and literature like the Zohar, as representing ideas and concepts present in the Jewish world of Yeshua a millennium-and-a-half earlier. Areas of strong theological disagreement, which can occur among those who tend to brazenly insist that Biblical faith is Judaism, can erupt when it concerns the equality of all people in the Messiah,[rrr] the applicability or non-applicability of the Torah to all of God’s people,[sss] or issues such as the plurality of the Godhead and its relationship to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4.[ttt] Should all of the concepts and ideas of post-Second Temple Judaism be synthesized with Apostolic doctrine? Where do the teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles get to definitively stand on their own? This is where the issue of whether today’s Messianics practice Judaism or a Biblical faith informed by Judaism sees (considerable) divergence.

It can be difficult for a few Messianics to acknowledge that Judaism might be in the wrong in some important areas, and for them to make the choice to stick with a Scripture First (Prima Scriptura) hermeneutic. Yet, most of today’s Messianic Jews will not be regarded as practicing Judaism by many other Jews—for the explicit reason that they acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah.

It is safe for us to recognize that the considerable majority of today’s Messianic Believers practice a form of Biblical faith significantly informed from Judaism (and for that same matter, likely informed from the Law-positive traditions of Protestant Christianity like Calvinism or Wesleyanism). Ultimately though, Biblical faith is a practice of steadfast trust and reliance upon our Eternal, Unseen God (Hebrews 11:1-2). Many of today’s Messianic Jews rightly recognize that God is bigger than Judaism, but some definitely struggle with it. Likewise, to keep this all in proper perspective—we have to remember how many of today’s Christians really fail to consider that God is bigger than Christianity…

NOTES

[a] Consult the article “The Message of 1 Corinthians,” and the entry for 1 Corinthians in his workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic, both by J.K. McKee.

[b] Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Branch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), pp 591-593 includes a useful summary, under the sub-section, “Remain in Slavery?”; see also the observations in Craig Blomberg, NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pp 147-148.

[c] J. Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” in Leander E. Keck, ed. et. al., New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10:883.

[d] W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 10:232-233.

[e] F.F. Bruce, New Century Bible: 1 and 2 Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1971), 71-72; Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp 108-112; Gordon D. Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp 306-322; Blomberg, pp 145-149; Richard B. Hays, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: 1 Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), pp 122-126; Anthony C. Thiselton, New International Greek Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp 544-562; Sampley, in NIB, 10:879-884.

[f] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), pp 457-456; David Rudolph (2010). Paul’s “Rule in All the Churches” (1 Cor 7:17-24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation, 03 November, 2008. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. Retrieved 06 June, 2011 from <http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/index>.

[g] Cf. D. Thomas Lancaster, The Holy Epistle to the Galatians: Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach (Marshfield, MO: First Fruits of Zion, 2011), 193; Boaz Michael, Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile (Marshfield, MO: First Fruits of Zion, 2013), pp 77-78.

[h] BDAG, 632.

[i] LS, 395.

[j] Blomberg, 145.

[k] Thiselton, 548.

[l] Ibid., pp 548-549.

[m] Bruce, 71.

[n] Sampley, in NIB, 10:880.

[o] Fee, 309.

[p] Bruce, 71.

[q] Fee, 310.

Fee does also say, though, approaching the “calling” as also being a social/spiritual vocation, in “that situation itself is taken up in the call and thus sanctified to him or her.”

[r] Ibid., 311.

[s] Thiselton, 549.

[t] “Doch wie einem jeglichen GOtt hat ausgeteilet. Ein jeglicher, wie ihn der HErr berufen hat, also wandele er. Und also schaffe ich's in allen Gemeinde” (Luther 1545 German Bible).

Cf. Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, German-English (Berlin and Munich: Langenscheidt KG, 1995), 99.

[u] Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, trans., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 593.

[v] LS, 633.

[w] BDAG, 380.

[x] Cf. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp 454-455.

[y] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 323.

[z] LS, 30.

[aa] Neusner, Mishnah, 604.

[bb] S. McKnight, “Proseltism and Godfearers,” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 844.

Cf. H.W. Hoehner, “Hasmomeans,” in ISBE, 2:624.

[cc] Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp 437-438.

[dd] 1 Corinthians 1:9 employs eklēthēte, likewise an aorist passive indicative.

[ee] Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 456; Lancaster, The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, pp 241-243.

[ff] Consult the publication One Law for All by J.K. McKee for a further discussion. More is planned to be addressed in the forthcoming Messianic Torah Helper by TNN Press, and in the author’s forthcoming book Torah In the Balance, Volume II.

[gg] “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary’” (Ezekiel 44:9).

[hh] Cf. Fee, pp 313-314; Blomberg, 146; Hays, 124.

[ii] Consult the article “The Impact of the Maccabees on First Century Judaism” by J.K. McKee, appearing in the Messianic Winter Holiday Helper by TNN Press.

[jj] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.

[kk] Morris, 110.

[ll] “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary’” (Ezekiel 44:9).

[mm] Consult the article “Is Circumcision for Everyone?” by J.K. McKee, appearing in Torah In the Balance, Volume II (forthcoming) for a further review of this topic.

[nn] Among Messianic Bible versions, the CJB follows suit with, “Each person should remain in the condition he was in when he was called.”

It is a pleasant surprise, though, to see a more correct rendering in the TLV, “Let each one remain in the calling in which he was called.” The Messianic Writings similarly has, “Let each man remain in that calling in which he was called.”

[oo] Fee, 314.

[pp] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, NASB (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994), 1515.

[qq] C.G. Kruse, “Calling,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 84.

His entry does not address 1 Corinthians 7:20, although Kruse does conclude that the “circumstances” of being called to faith are not “callings in the sense of Christian vocations, as some have argued.” He goes on to state, for 1 Corinthians 7:24, “[Paul] is saying that the call to faith does not necessitate a change in life circumstances for those who respond to it” (Ibid., 85).

In our argument for 1 Corinthians 7:24, this writer will argue that “let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God” (ASV), would be that as each person called to Messiah faith abides in the Lord, He will direct changes to their station in life as is appropriate.

[rr] One might also consider the word of Hebrews 3:1, “Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling [klēseōs epouraniou], consider Yeshua, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.”

[ss] “[F]or the gifts and the calling of God [ta charismata kai hē klēsis tou Theou] are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

[tt] Do be aware of the possibility of how various modern commentators on 1 Corinthians 7:20, might not recognize the importance of Ephesians 4:1 for interpreting this verse, because they might be prone to deny genuine Pauline authorship of the Epistle of Ephesians.

[uu] Bruce, 71.

[vv] Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1971), 113.

[ww] F. Hauck, “ménō,” in TDNT, 581.

[xx] BDAG, 631.

[yy] BibleWorks 8.0: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. MS Windows Vista/7 Release. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2009-2010. DVD-ROM.

[zz] The NKJV has the similar, “Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.”

[aaa] Among Messianic Bible versions, the CJB follows suit with, “Brothers, let each one remain with God in the condition in which he was called.” The Messianic Writings similarly has, “Brethren, in whatever condition each man was called, let him remain in that condition with God.”

A better rendering is offered by the TLV, “Brothers and sisters, let each one—in whatever way he was called—remain that way with God.”

[bbb] Brown and Comfort, 594.

[ccc] Bruce, 72.

[ddd] Ibid.

[eee] Wallace, 336.

[fff] For a concise summary of relative pronouns in Biblical Greek, consult David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), pp 155-157.

[ggg] Wallace, 337.

[hhh] Morris, pp 111-112.

[iii] This author’s rendering is likely to appear in a future volume of the for the Practical Messianic series, by TNN Press.

[jjj] An obvious exception to this could be David Rudolph (2010). Paul’s “Rule in All the Churches” (1 Cor 7:17-24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation, 03 November, 2008. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. Accessible via <http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/index>.

[kkk] Consult the relevant volumes of the Messianic Helper series by TNN Press.

[lll] Consult the relevant sections of the publication One Law for All by J.K. McKee.

[mmm] Neusner, Mishnah, 604.

[nnn] Consult the commentary Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic by J.K. McKee.

[ooo] For a further review, consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Galatians 5:2-3.”

[ppp] Consult the exegesis paper on Matthew 5:17-19 by J.K. McKee, “Has the Law Been Fulfilled?”, appearing in his book The New Testament Validates Torah.

[qqq] This is further evaluated in the exegesis paper on Matthew 23:2-3 by J.K. McKee, “Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?”, appearing in the Messianic Torah Helper.

[rrr] Consult the exegesis paper on Galatians 3:28 by J.K. McKee, “Biblical Equality and Today’s Messianic Movement,” appearing in his commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

[sss] Consult the publication One Law for All by J.K. McKee.

[ttt] Consult the article “What Does the Shema Really Mean?” by J.K. McKee, appearing in his publication Confronting the Divinity and Messiahship of Yeshua.

About the Editor

Margaret McKee Huey is one of the founders of Outreach Israel Ministries (OIM) and serves on its Board as the Office Manager. She is also one of the copy editors for TNN Press, a subsidiary of OIM.

Margaret is a multi-talented woman who exemplifies what a Proverbs 31 woman should be. Besides handling the business responsibilities of OIM and editing assignments with TNN Press, she operates an internationally known needlework sampler design business that she founded in 1985. Yet, she still finds time to successfully invest in raising her three children.

In addition to her business acumen, Margaret is spiritually gifted as an evangelist. She was actively involved in evangelism through the Walk to Emmaus, Chrysalis Program and the Lay Witness Mission while in the United Methodist Church. When asked what Biblical character she most identifies with, she demurely responds, “why John the Baptist, of course.” The passion of her heart is communicating the “Gospel According to the Torah.” In an inspiring and convicting way, she not only helps you understand the sacrifice of Yeshua and your salvation, but also helps you understand the mercy of the Holy One as one follows His Torah.

Margaret comes from a long line of Methodist preachers and teachers. Although raised in a Christian home, she did not come to true saving faith until the age of 30. She was immediately drawn into an appreciation of Israel, the Jewish people, understanding that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel and even celebrating the Seder Passover with her first husband, Kim McKee, at their Methodist church beginning in 1986.

Lamentably, in 1992 Margaret was widowed at the age of 39 with the responsibility for three young children. This unexpected tragedy did not detour her from her relationship with God, but instead prompted her into even greater dependency upon Him as her provider and comforter. As a result of her life experiences, she is gifted in grief counseling and deliverance issues.

Margaret is the editor for the upcoming Messianic cookbook, Kosher Your Plate, as well as editor for the Messianic Helper Series. Some of the titles for this series include: Messianic Winter Holiday Helper, Messianic Spring Holiday Helper, Messianic Fall Holiday Helper, and the Messianic Sabbath Helper.

Margaret is a graduate of Vanderbilt University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology. She is the wife of William Mark Huey and the mother of John McKee, Jane McKee, and Maggie McKee Huey and now resides in Dallas, Texas. She is a member of Eitz Chaim Messianic Jewish Synagogue.

Margaret can be reached at Outreach Israel Ministries

E-mail: margaret@outreachisrael.net

Contributors to this Volume

Mark Huey (B.A., Vanderbilt University in History and Graduate Studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) is the Director of Outreach Israel Ministries (www.outreachisrael.net). He is the author of several books, including: TorahScope, Volumes I & II, Counting the Omer: A Daily Devotional Toward Shavuot, and Sayings of the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective on Pirkei Avot. He is also a co-author of Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study.

J.K. McKee (B.A., University of Oklahoma; M.A., Asbury Theological Seminary) is the editor of TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net) and is a Messianic apologist. He is a 2009 recipient of the Zondervan Biblical Languages Award for Greek. He is author of numerous books, dealing with a wide range of topics that are important for today’s Messianic Believers. He has also written many articles on theological issues, and is presently focusing his attention on Messianic commentaries of various books of the Bible.

Publications Available from TNN Press

TNN Press is the official publishing arm of TNN Online, and its parent organization, Outreach Israel Ministries. TNN Press is dedicated to producing high quality, doctrinally sound, challenging, and fair-minded Messianic materials and resources for the Twenty-First Century. TNN Press offers a wide array of new and exciting books and resources for the truth seeker.

TNN Press titles are available for purchase at www.outreachisrael.net or at Amazon.com

Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study

is TNN Press’ main, best-selling publication, that offers a good overview of the Messianic movement and Messianic lifestyle that can be used for individual or group study in twelve easy lessons

Introduction to Things Messianic

is an excellent companion to Hebraic Roots, which goes into substantially more detail into the emerging theology of the Messianic movement, specific areas of Torah observance, and aspects of faith such as salvation and eschatology

The Messianic Helper series, edited by Margaret McKee Huey, includes a series of books with instructional information on how to have a Messianic home, including holiday celebration guides.

Messianic Winter Holiday Helper

is a guide to help you during the Winter holiday season, addressing the significance of Chanukah, the period of the Maccabees, and the non-Biblical holiday of Christmas

Messianic Spring Holiday Helper

is a guide to assist you during the Spring holiday season, analyzing the importance of Purim, Passover and Unleavened Bread, Shavuot, and the non-Biblical holiday of Easter

Messianic Fall Holiday Helper

is a guide for the Fall holiday season of Yom Teruah/Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot, along with reflective teachings and exhortations

Messianic Sabbath Helper (coming soon in paperback)

is a guide that will help you make the seventh-day Sabbath a delight, discussing both how to keep the Sabbath and the history of the transition to Sunday that occurred in early Christianity

Messianic Kosher Helper

is a guide discussing various aspects of the kosher dietary laws, clean and unclean meats, common Jewish traditions associated with kashrut, common claims made that these are no longer important for Believers, and an extensive analysis of Biblical passages from the Tanach (OT) and Apostolic Scriptures (NT) about the Torah’s dietary laws and their relevance

Messianic Torah Helper

is a guide that weighs the different perspectives of the Pentateuch present in Jewish and Christian theology, considers the role of the Law for God’s people, and how today’s Messianics can fairly approach issues of halachah and tradition in their Torah observance

Outreach Israel Ministries director Mark Huey has written Torah commentaries and reflections that are thought provoking and very enlightening for Messianic Believers today.

TorahScope Volume I

is a compilation workbook of insightful commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions

TorahScope Volume II

is a second compilation workbook of expanded commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions

TorahScope Volume III

is a third compilation workbook of expanded commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions, specifically concentrating on the theme of faith

TorahScope Haftarah Exhortations

is a compilation workbook of insightful commentaries on the specific, weekly Haftarah portions, designed to be used to compliment the weekly Torah reading

TorahScope Apostolic Scripture Reflections

is a compilation workbook of insightful reflections on suggested readings from the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, designed to be used to compliment the weekly Torah and Haftarah readings

Counting the Omer: A Daily Devotional Toward Shavuot

is a daily devotional with fifty succinct reflections from Psalms, guiding you during the season between the festivals of Passover and Pentecost

Sayings of the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective on Pirkei Avot

is a daily devotional for two years of reflection on the Mishnah tractate Pirkei Avot, introducing you to some of the key views present in the Apostolic period as witnessed by the Jewish Sages (intended to be read during the counting of the omer)

TNN Online editor and Messianic apologist J.K. McKee has written on Messianic theology and practice, including studies on Torah observance, the end-times, and commentaries that are helpful to those who have difficult questions to answer.

The New Testament Validates Torah

Does the New Testament Really Do Away With the Law?

is a resource examining a wide variety of Biblical passages, discussing whether or not the Torah of Moses is really abolished in the New Testament

Torah In the Balance, Volume I

The Validity of the Torah and Its Practical Life Applications

examines the principal areas of a Torah observant walk of faith for the newcomer, including one’s spiritual motives

Confronting Critical Issues

An Analysis of Subjects that Affects the Growth and Stability

of the Emerging Messianic Movement

compiles a variety of articles and analyses that directly confront negative teachings and trends that have been witnessed in the broad Messianic community in the past decade

TNN Press has produced a variety of Messianic commentaries on various books of the Bible under the “for the Practical Messianic” byline. These can be used in an individual, small group, or congregational study.

general commentaries:

A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic

A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic

specific book commentaries:

Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic

Galatians for the Practical Messianic

Ephesians for the Practical Messianic

Philippians for the Practical Messianic

Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic

The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic

1&2 Thessalonians for the Practical Messianic

James for the Practical Messianic

Hebrews for the Practical Messianic

TNN Press has produced a selection of confronting issues mini-books, specifically designed to address controversial theological topics facing a widely divided Messianic movement

One Law for All

From the Mosaic Texts to the Work of the Holy Spirit

by J.K. McKee

addresses the different passages that are significant to the whole discussion of “one Law” or “one Torah” to be followed by the people of God, and the widespread polarization of the Torah being a Divine Invitation or Covenant Obligation for non-Jewish Believers

Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel?

by J.K. McKee

addresses the basic choices of ecclesiology for today’s Messianic Believers: either God (1) has two groups of elect, or sub-peoples: Israel and “the Church”; or God (2) recognizes us all as a part of an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel. How are we to approach non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement, and things like the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), or being grafted-in (Romans 11:16-18)?

Confronting Yeshua’s Divinity and Messiahship

by J.K. McKee

examines some of the top reasons given by Messianic people who deny Yeshua as being God, why the Godhead can indeed be plural, and some of the top reasons given by Jewish anti-missionaries against Yeshua being the Messiah of Israel

To Be Absent From the Body

by J.K. McKee

confronts the debate over the intermediate state, what occurs to a person between death and the resurrection, and how the Scriptures do indeed affirm that people will be in a disembodied condition in another dimension for a limited time

Why Hell Must Be Eternal

by J.K. McKee

addresses the rather uncomfortable and unpopular topic of eternal punishment, considering some of the common proof texts given in support of annihilationism, and also weighs in the perspective of the metaphorical view of eternal punishment present in theological studies since the Protestant Reformation

One of the goals of TNN Press is to always be in the mode of producing more cutting edge materials, addressing head on some of the theological and spiritual issues facing our emerging Messianic movement. In addition to our current array of available and soon-to-be available publications, the following are a selection of Future Projects, in various stages of planning and pre-production, most of which involve research at the present time (2013). Look for their release sometime over the next two to five years and beyond.

Torah In the Balance, Volume II

The Set-Apart Life in Action—The Outward Expressions of Faith

by J.K. McKee

will examine many of the finer areas of Torah observance, which has a diversity of interpretations and applications as witnessed in both mainstream Judaism and the wide Messianic community

Salvation on the Line/in View

by J.K. McKee

is a planned/anticipated multi-volume series which will directly tackle the subject of apostasy in today’s Messianic movement, first considering the Divinity of Yeshua, the doctrine of salvation, and later the Messiahship of Yeshua, the reliability of the Scriptures, and human origins

Table of Contents

Introduction

PART I APPROACHING THE TORAH

-1- The Importance of Studying the Torah

-2- Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah

-3- A Messianic Evolution?

PART II THE RELEVANCE OF MOSES TEACHING

-4- Torah As Constitution

-5- MICAH 4: 1-3; ISAIAH 2: 2-4 "THE TORAH WILL GO FORTH FROM ZION"

-6- Is Messiah the Termination of the Torah?

-7- What Does "Under the Law" Really Mean?

-8- The Message of Galatians

-9- The Message of Romans

-10- The Message of Hebrews

-11- The Message of James

PART III THE APPLICATION OF THE TORAH AND HALACHAH

-12- One Law for All

-13- The Significance of the Messiah Event

-14- The Significance of the Messiah Event

-15- Is the Hebrew Matthew an Authentic Document?

-16- MATTHEW 23: 2-3 Who Sits in the Seat of Moses?

PART IV TORAH,AND THE CONTEMPORARY MESSIANIC MOVEMENT

-17- Is God's Purpose Bigger ?

-18- A Low Hamartology

-19- Considering Messianic Jewish Fears of Replacement and Irrelevance

-20- Waging War: Fight the Good Fight

-21- Torah and the Holy Spirit

-22- Our Heavenly Father's Heart: The Messianic Restoration