EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME III
The Torah
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume III--The Torah
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume III--The Torah
CHAPTER PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part K--The Torah
32 The Question of Law 6
33 The Definition of Sin 21
34 Acts 15 32
35 Shaul and the Torah 40
36 Love and the Torah 53
37 The Need for Grace 67
38 Grace and the Torah 81
39 Examples in the Torah 93
40 Life and the Torah 98
Part L--Change?
41 YHWH YESHUA on Change I 110
42 YHWH YESHUA on Change II 118
43 YHWH YESHUA on Change III 130
44 YHWH YESHUA on Change IV 143
45 Do Things Matter? 151
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume three of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Sukkot 2005 CE
Chapter 32--The Question of Law
The Old Testament Laws Carry Authority
Statements in the prior chapters, on the fact that the Old Testament laws were authoritative in the New Testament, can provoke and upset many misinformed and ignorant Christians who have been so thoroughly mesmerized and indoctrinated by Churchianity as to believe that there must be something inherently wrong with “Moses” since his writings on the "law" were abolished and done away with.
Some Christians even say that the law (the Torah in Hebrew) was imperfect and had to be terminated.
And by all means, Christians habitually like to use the word bondage in virtually any discussion on the Torah. This word bondage is a favorite word used by Christians to describe the Torah and the OT laws and instructions.
The September 2000 “Destiny Letter” (p. 3), which will be addressed in a subsequent chapter, illustrates this Christian confusion by discussing Galatians 3:17 in the vein of the “laws given by Moses at Sinai (and the bondage they entailed).” Can any honest person and student of the Book really look upon YHWH’s Word as bondage? Yet, Christians do!
The truth about Galatians 3:17 will be commented upon in some detail in a succeeding chapter and needs not be discussed here. Suffice to say, the Apostle Shaul had far more brains than to write or communicate, in any instance, anything being wrong with YHWH’s OT. As a minimum, he would never have used the word “bondage” to describe the Torah. Only Christians are that foolish and uninformed.
Though this Christian theology persists, actually, nothing could be further from the truth. And if there was any basis of verity for such suppositions, then surely an honest person would have to raise some questions over those New Testament texts which were being used to discard or discredit the Old Testament.
The whole basis and foundation of support for the New Testament hangs on the validity, authority and truthfulness of the Old Testament. If there is something “wrong” with the Old Testament; then, of necessity, there is something wrong with the New Testament.
In a word, there can be “no” valid New Testament without an Old Testament. While the Old Testament can stand alone and not be dependent upon any other writings for existence or authority, the same thing cannot be said for the New Testament. Hence, the New Testament means absolutely nothing (zero) without an authoritative, consistent, harmonious and truthful Old Testament.
Whenever an ignorant and uninformed Christian attempts to damage, hurt, criticize or condemn the Old Testament, then that Christian person has effectively placed even more damage, hurt, criticism and condemnation (unknowingly) on the New Testament as well. In a word, he is a hypocrite!
Building on Earlier Foundations
Although the Old Testament can stand upon its own merit for authority, status and validity, such a position cannot be attached to the New Testament, as just noted. The New Testament is utterly attached to, and dependent upon, the Old Testament for its whole foundational support. The New Testament is merely a continuation of information first broached in the Old Testament.
An article on “The Flip Side,” in the Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 3), suggested that the OT was a foundational, introductory segment which leads up to the NT in one continuous presentation. So, when we read/study a book, should we start at the beginning or over in the middle of the book? The answer is clear. We start at the beginning. So, why not do the same with the Scriptures?
Thus, without the Old Testament, there is no basis for a New Testament. The writings of Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah and Shaul have meaning only because of the Old Testament. Remove the OT and YESHUA, Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah, Shaul and so forth mean zero.
The Torah is First
Carrying this one step further, it is also quite manifest that within the OT, the Torah (the books of Moshe--Genesis through Deuteronomy, known in Greek as the Pentateuch) is the foundational support for all of the later writings. Without the Torah, the later prophets and writings have virtually little or no meaning whatsoever. Consequently, it is the Torah in the OT which carries first and primary authority and status.
All of the later OT books have their foundations and support from this legal and inspired Torah. Yes, without the Torah, there really is nothing to follow. The “rabbis” claim that the entire revelation of The EL’s truth is contained in the Torah, which is the most essential and fundamental revelation ever given to man.
It is a truism that if a Scriptural doctrine or teaching is not found in the Torah, at least at an intimated level, then it is to be rejected (Av 5754, “Jezreel’s Call,” p. 1).
In his “Commentary on the Torah” (p. xi), the previously mentioned Richard Elliott Friedman told about a gift from his “rabbi” of the Torah at his bar mitzwot. On the first page, he read this inscription-- “Turn it over, and turn it over, because everything is in it.”
Yes, everything of importance in truth, and everything to follow, seems to start in some way in the Torah. Following the Torah, the prophets probably are next in authority and position and with the writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc) coming in last in the OT canon.
This hierarchy of the authority of the books in the Tanakh (the Torah first, the prophets next and the writings last) is well recognized within Judaism (Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 40). If something in the prophets or writings seems to be in conflict with the Torah, the words of the Torah prevail in establishing doctrine and truth. The Torah is the foundational test for all else to follow.
Same in the NT
Of course, there also is some system of hierarchy within the New Testament books. The most important NT books, for foundational and historical support, have to be the so-called Gospels which build upon the Torah, prophets and writings of the OT. Without these first books in the NT, and of course, the foundational support of the OT, the later epistles of Shaul, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah and Yohanan mean little or nothing.
Thus, if something in the NT seems to be in conflict with the Torah (first) or the Tanakh generally, then it must be rejected. All Scriptures must be consistent and in harmony.
And all Scriptural authority commences with the Torah first, the prophets second, the OT writings third, the historical NT books next, then the Acts and then the remainder of the NT.
In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 5), Darrell W. Conder outlines the prevailing Christian rule of interpretation as being that Christians read and interpret the OT by what the NT says. The Christian view is that the NT is the foundation upon which the OT rests. Conder goes on to outline the correct view as being that if the NT is authoritative, then it must rest upon the foundation of the OT.
This writer agrees with Conder, but would qualify his conclusions slightly. Christians interpret the OT, not on the basis of the NT; but rather, on the basis of what they think that the NT says and not on what it actually says.
Manifestly, in Second Temple days, and evidently thereafter to modern times, the Jews have agreed upon the Tanakh (and particularly the Torah) as their basis of faith. And of course, many so-called modern Jews disobey and violate the Torah. But this sad reality does not alter the fact of the preeminence of the Torah among Jews--at least, among religious or observant Jews.
Too, there was some disagreement in Judaism in Second Temple days on Tanakh interpretations. But at least, there was Jewish acceptance of the basic writings then, and subsequently, as will be described in later chapters.
But rather than accept the beginning premise of the OT (which should be the entire basis of their faith), Christians either reject or ignore the Tanakh and particularly the Torah while accepting and agreeing among themselves only on the validity and presence of the NT.
A Real Paradox
Though Christians demean and ignore the Tanakh, in any attempt to define righteousness, there is an interesting remark in the NT which goes to prove conclusively how wrong Christians are in this attitude of rebellion.
This powerful indictment was brought out by Rick Aharon Chaimberlin, in a remark in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 34). Chaimberlin noted that early on in the New Testament, the Book says that the priest Zekharyah and his wife Elisheva were righteous, walked in the commandments and ordinances of YHWH and were blameless before The MOST HIGH (Lu 1:6).
Chaimberlin then asked this question: How could they be righteous since they were in this state long before YESHUA was even born and before He died for sin? Going on, how can they be blameless while walking in the commandments and ordinances of YHWH in the OT? Obviously, Christians can’t have it both ways with Zekharyah and his wife in about the period 7-6 BCE.
Christian Confusion
Naturally, Christians have gotten it all wrong, while at least the Jews start off on the right track with the basic acceptance and support for the Tanakh and especially the Torah. Christians can never understand the real world. The NT means absolutely nothing or zero without the OT. Everything in the NT depends upon the presence, authority and truth of the OT.
Since Christians identify themselves as NT Christians, they have largely rejected, or at least theologically ignored, the presence, value and authority of the OT. Thus, their world of understanding, thinking and reasoning has been seriously warped and distorted. The result has been a surfacing of pandemonium and confusion throughout Christianity for the last 2,000 years. Some would call this Babylonian confusion!
In terms of Scriptural law, Christian writer Stephen E. Jones wrote in an article on “The Purpose of Law and Grace” (Sep 1998 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 1) that “There are a large number of ‘New Testament’ Christians who simply dispose of Old Testament law in favor of what they think is a new law of the New Testament. But the New Testament assumes that people already are familiar with the Old.”
The point Jones made is that Christians are badly misinformed on the question of law in the Scriptures. As he indicated, the NT starts out on the premise that people are already familiar with the OT law. Jones has it right and this fact will be brought out in later comments on the law. For a fact, the vast bulk of Christians have no concept at all about the Torah--other than that it is something bad, done away with and not for them.
It is an absolute rarity in Christendom to find any person who has read, studied, mediated upon and attempted to obey virtually any OT law--unless that law has a clearly discernible presence in the NT.
Christians typically never read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. They may read a portion of Genesis on occasion. But that is the general extent of it, unless they are forced into checking something otherwise in the Torah while studying the NT.
The Basis of Law
The word Torah is a Hebrew word found in the OT (Deut 33:4,10). It is commonly translated as law, although some scholars (especially Jewish savants) suggest that it probably means something greater than just law. Some Messianic believers actually suggest that it is both the OT and the NT (Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate,” p. 3).
“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 1235) gives its real meaning as teaching, doctrine or instruction. In the OT, it seems to typically refer to the Pentateuch or the five books of Moshe (Gen--Deut), although parental directions to their children are also called torah (Prov 1:8; 6:20; 31:26). Thus, per Proverbs, the Scriptural definition of the word “Torah” seems to be the instructions and teachings of parents for their children.
With this background, it is easy to surmise that The MOST HIGH, in the role of Ha AV (the “Father,” per the English), has issued His instructions, teachings and directions to His children in His Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Therefore, the Torah is profound, paramount and first for YHWH’s followers (in their capacity of being His children).
While the OT links Torah essentially to the books of Moshe, Judaism has developed a theory that there are, in fact, two laws or Torahs (Torot in the Hebrew, plural)--one being the Written Torah (she-bi-khetav) and the other being the Oral Torah (she-be-al-peh) which supposedly also came down from Moshe orally, and is today found in the Jewish Talmud (to be assessed in later chapters).
Religious Jews support this argument by claiming that the Torot in Genesis 26:5 refer to both (Judaica, v. 15, p. 1236).
After the Babylonian exile, the Aramaic word “dath” was sometimes used to describe the Torah and various man-made laws as well. It is also true that English translators on rare occasions translated a few other words as law (like mitzwah, choq, chaqaq and mishpat, all to be discussed later). But in the main, the word law in OT English translations refers to Torah.
In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek word “nomos” (meaning law in English) was used to translate the Hebrew Torah (200 out of 220 times, “Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,” v. iv, p. 1046).
In the Greek NT, nomos was also generally used in references to the Torah, as well as man-made laws. To ascertain whether the subject nomos was the Torah or some other definition, a study of the contextual use is mandatory (although most NT uses of nomos are clearly in reference to the Torah).
“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 1480) makes the case that in the Pentateuch, legal and moral norms are not distinguished by any definitional criteria. Hence, morality and the Torah are virtually synonymous in the Hebrew culture.
The just cited Stephen E. Jones adds that “All laws and systems of law are religious in origin. They are inescapably religious. This is so because laws establish standards which define justice and morality for society, and the source of law in any society is its god.
“If a society makes is own laws, based upon human reasoning, then Humanism is its religion, and man is its god. If its laws are made by a single ruler, then he is the highest god of that society. If a nation’s laws are made by a group of people, then we can say that this group of legislators are the gods of that society. The source of law is the god of any society” (Sep 1998 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 1).
This reality in any discussion of law is important to grasp. Evidently, all laws, by design, are religious laws offering standards of morality and justice. The law maker assumes the posture of deity. Later chapters herein will assess humanism. For now, it is important to tie humanism and humanistic laws to so-called human beings, in contrast to YHWH’s law.
Christian Attitudes
Some Christians have come to realize that sin is the transgression of the law (the Torah, I Jo 3:4, per the KJV). In order to support their overall opposition to the totality of YAH’s Torah, a rare few Christians choose to recognize and validate the Ten Commandments on the premise that the Ten Commandments alone constitute “YHWH’s law,” and not the collective commands outlined in Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Some accept the Ten Commandments and go another step or two up to accept one or more of The EL’s other stated laws. For example, the Seventh-day Adventists essentially accept the Ten Commandments and also the clean meat laws.
Many of the Sardis groups, to be discussed later, go one more step up and accept the annual feast days. To justify their rebellious pick and choose decisions, many Christians try to pretend that there are two sets of laws in the Tanakh.
They say that one law is the moral law and the other is the ceremonial law. Any laws Christians choose to keep, they identify as moral laws. Any laws that they don’t want to keep, they label as ceremonial/ritual laws done away with. Of course, per the Word, this is blatant nonsense. The Seventh-day Adventists, in particular, follow this method.
This allows Christians, like the Adventists, to pick and choose which commands they are willing to obey and which they can reject. While it is true that the sacrificial system, and perhaps even the tabernacle, were added after the giving of the law defining righteousness, and following the actions of the people into sin, this in no way constituted a second law. All of the Torah is one law (or Torah).
Another popular Christian trick is to try to claim that the OT laws (the Torah) are the “laws of Moses,” as if he invented them for the Israelites. Again, this is blatant nonsense and indeed stupidity. The Torah reflects Moshe’s conclusion on his work, as a scribe, when he noted that he had not done this work of his own mind (Num 16:28).
Of course, Moshe worked for and served The HIGHEST. So any misinformed or ill-advised Christian wishing to argue, pick at and contend with the Torah needs to be at least half way honest and attribute the law in its totality to YHWH, and quit blaming Moshe for it.
But the historic Jewish position is that every word of Genesis to Deuteronomy constitutes YHWH’s Torah or law. Clearly, this is the Scriptural position as well. Every commandment to Yisrael, in the collective or generic sense, in those first five books, constitutes a law to be obeyed. The disobedience of any of those laws becomes sin.
It is absolutely amazing that a few ignorant, uninformed and rebellious Christians will actually muster enough faith and Scriptural understanding to acknowledge that sin is the transgression of the law (I Jo 3:4); but then never study the law (Genesis through Deuteronomy), know little or nothing about the law, and manifestly refuse to be corrected by and obey the law.
Of course, some Christians claim to obey the law and understand it, in the context that transgression of the law is sin. But they have no appreciation or awareness at all about what all “the law” encompasses, and most seem little interested in finding out. The law is correctly Genesis through Deuteronomy. It is not just the Ten Commandments. It is not just the Ten Commandments plus the food laws.
It is not just the 10 Commandments, the food laws, the feast days and a few other laws from the Torah, as different Christian people like to pick and choose which they will obey. No. It is not a game of pick and choose which laws an individual wants to obey. The law is not determined on the basis of what some person or persons want it to be.
Be A Doer and Not a Judge
The NT book of Yakov addressed this Christian perception in an interesting fashion by drawing a parallel between speaking evil of, or against, a brother and (Greek kai meaning even) judging a brother in the context of speaking evil of, or against, the law, even (Greek kai) judging the law (Jas 4:11). Any person trying to judge the law (by speaking evil of it or against it) cannot be a doer of the law or be obedient to it.
Of course, the believer is to be a doer of the law and not a judge in the process of accepting and/or deciding the legal status of the law by speaking against it or any part of it. Actually, this is a common Christian practice. Almost all Christians speak against, or oppose the totality of the law completely; howbeit, some few may accept the Ten Commandments and/or several of the individual laws like eating clean meats, etc.
This conclusion by Yakov may be a little complicated. But the point is that individual people (Christians) have not been granted authority to determine the legal status of YHWH’s law. They can’t act to reject law and decide what is not law, nor can they decide which laws are valid to be obeyed and which are not. The truth is that The EL has established His Torah and declared all of it legal and binding for all of His people.
YAH’s people are expected only to be doers of the law. Yet, Christians inevitably judge the law by being opposed to all of it, in context, all the while that some of them claim to obey the law. True, those claiming to obey the law and recognize that sin is the transgression of the law may obey some part of the law (like the Ten Commandments, etc). But they will not accept and obey all of the Torah/law.
Christians, apparently without exception, are fundamentally opposed to the overall Torah. They oppose it. They speak against it. They reject it. And they end up doing precisely what Yakov wrote about. They become people against the Torah when they should be doers of all of the Torah. Therefore, they are classic hypocrites.
The Torah is The ELOHIM’s will and choice of what constitutes righteousness. His Torah encompasses “all” of the generic laws in Genesis through Deuteronomy. Why in the world won’t Christians believe and accept the clear and indisputable truth of the totality of YHWH’s Torah?
Why do Christians inevitably choose to try to limit YHWH’s laws to just a few of the ones that they personally find acceptable? Why won’t they study, contemplate, reflect upon and obey all of YHWH’s laws? Why do they choose to ignore them totally in the collective sense--beyond just the few that they are willing to accept?
The Jewish Position
Later chapters will examine the Jewish Talmud. There is no intent presently to examine it in any detail. But the point must be made that much of the Talmud has been prepared on the premise that the Scriptures failed to provide the needed details and explanations on the Torah, so that oral traditions had to be codified as law to guide religious Jews.
In other words, religious Jews in Second Temple days, and soon thereafter, began developing traditions and traditional approaches of interpretation of the law, to define, delineate and establish each aspect of its fulfillment or obedience to the enth degree, dictating no discretion or personal interpretation in any consideration of fulfillment.
The Jewish “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” (p. 223), to be described in the next chapter, teaches that the Ten Commandments alone are not sufficient to guide Yisrael, and that innumerable laws precede and follow the Ten Commandments. While the case can be made that the Talmud is at issue here, it is also a fact that the Torah itself outlines a whole host of other laws and instructions which are necessary to fulfill the Decalogue.
Virtually all Christians would argue strongly with this historic Jewish position and make fun of it, and belittle it. But there is much merit for it, and particularly in terms of what the Torah says.
Actually, historic Jewish sages have studied the laws in the Pentateuch and have identified some 613 express commands (mitzwot in the Hebrew) in the Torah, which apply in the generic sense to Israelites. The best current compilation of these famous 613 mitzwot is outlined in “Maimonides, The Commandments,” as translated by Dr Charles B. Chavel, and published by “Soncino Press” of New York and London.
The great Jewish scholar Maimonides lived almost a thousand years ago and made this codification. He found 248 positive commandments requiring specific acts and duties of the faithful, and 365 prohibitions or negative commands.
As suggested in a former chapter, Scripturally, a positive command usually (and possibly always) seems to take precedence over a negative command--if there should be a conflict between the two (clearly suggested by John 7:22-23).
Of course, some of these commandments focused on the priesthood, the Temple and Temple operations and therefore have no application in the present environment in the absence of the Temple. But otherwise, all of the commands cited deal with individual personal duties and acts of righteousness by the individual believer.
In his book “YESHUA” (p. 13), Ron Moseley makes the case that 170 of the 613 mitzwot in total deal expressly with moral and ethical questions. Subsequent chapters herein will cite a whole host of laws that deal with charity, prohibiting gossip and slander, and all kinds of things which Christians would be shocked to know are present in the OT.
Similar to Man-made Laws
This writer takes the stance that the Ten Commandments are express commands, which are higher or broader in prominence and application than the other commands. All of the other commands are in the nature of statutes (Hebrew choq), judgments (Hebrew mishpat) and ordinances (Hebrew chuqqah). However, all are sometimes called commandments (mitzwot) in terms of the Torah.
In the Book (Deut 10:4; Ps 119:172), the so-called Ten Commandments generally are referred to as the Ten Words (Hebrew davar) or even the Ten Things (per an article on “Work’s Righteousness,” in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 8). This definition distinguishes these ten from the other commands (the mitzwot) that go on to make up the total 613 commandments, mentioned above.
This breakdown in law resembles what one finds in American law. The Ten Words are a type of supreme Constitutional law. The statutes are like legislative (statutory) laws. Judgments are like court decisions and judicial law. Ordinances are like local ordinances that have limitations in time or area. YHWH’s ordinances typically focus on the Temple operation.
Since the constitutional law is expressed in the Ten Words or Commandments, this was/is the basic law of Yisrael. All other laws (statutes, judgments and ordinances) link to and have their existence, to properly provide interpretation, application and obedience of the Ten Words/Commandments.
These other laws define, and make possible, the correct and proper obedience and application of the Ten Words/Commandments. Even the statutory laws, which impose penalties (such as death, a beating, restitution, etc), are necessary to implement and obey the overall law system. The same is true in US law.
For example, the seventh commandment says to not commit adultery. Any number of statutes and judgments go on to define marriage, sexual relations and establish what constitutes adultery. The MOST HIGH outlines statutory laws to prescribe all kinds of things associated with marriage, adultery and so forth. These laws are necessary in order to properly keep the basic commandment.
In the OT, the prophets followed up and offered judgments defining the essentials on this command as well (the same thing happens in man-made jurisdictions, where courts render judicial judgments [judicial laws] defining constitutional and statutory laws). In the NT, YESHUA, Shaul, Kefa and others offered numerous judgments about marriage, adultery, duties of the husband, wife, etc.
In order to understand and keep the seventh commandment, one needs to understand all data on this subject, and obey all of the various statutes and judgments associated with it. The point is that there are a host of statutory laws and OT and NT judgments which act hand in hand, to define and clarify the requirements of the Ten Words.
Moshe explained this relationship in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 (previously cited) when he remarked that obedience of the statutes and judgments is necessary in order to keep the (basic ten) commandments (the mitzwot in the Torah).
613 in the OT and 1,050 in the NT
Incidentally, the Apr-Jun 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 32) had an article by Rick Chaimberlin on “The Holy Spirit” which quoted “Dake’s Annotated Bible” (p. 313-316). “Dake’s” said that the NT contained 1,050 commandments (correctly judgments or instructions). Chaimberlin added that this is astounding since the NT is only one third of the size of the OT.
These 1,050 NT commandments are reportedly listed in “Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible on pages 313-316, as a matter of information (Apr-Jun 2003 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 19).
In view of the constant complaints from Christendom about the 613 mitzwot in the Torah, one wonders how it is possible that Christians can pass over or make light of the 1,050 laws (judgments) in the NT (which actually amplify and build upon the 613 OT mitzwot). If the law was done away with, what about the 1,050 judgments in the NT? Do these judgments stand?
If they stand, then they must stand in relation to the 613 mitzwot in the Torah. Manifestly, they do not stand alone. Therefore, they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, separate and apart from the foundational support of the Torah. This same reasoning applies to the numerous prophetic judgments in the OT prophets. They, too, only have meaning because of the foundational support of the mitzwot in the Torah.
Upon learning of these 1,663 mitzwot, a friend wrote me a letter and asked how one can keep those laws if he does not know them--since they are not laid out one after the other in the Scriptures? Well, the truth is that all of these mitzwot are defined and laid out fairly clear in the Word, in the vein of commandments of a generic nature. They are in the Book, and can be known through study and obedience.
Importantly, the Tanakh presents these mitzwot in the vein of “do and do not” for the people of Yisrael. In the New Testament, YESHUA and the Apostolic leaders outlined their judgments (in the form of clarifications and further determinations) upon the 613 mitzwot of the OT. These NT commands are couched in the role of “do” or “do not” for Messianic believers (out of generic Yisrael).
Anyone who thinks that the 1,663 laws in the Scriptures are too many should pause and look at the number of laws Americans face every day without a whimper. Every year, the Congress passes 6,000 laws and presidents write tens of thousands of regulations (carrying the force of law). At all government levels, Americans face daily at least something well over 100,000 laws (with 20,000 gun laws alone).
Why?
A good reason for these various Scriptural statutes, judgments and edicts defining, explaining and clarifying YHWH’s basic commandments has been demonstrated over the past few years in the actions and mentality of the former elected leader of Christian America--President William Jefferson Clinton.
Clinton is a trained lawyer. If there is one word that describes him fully, it is “slick.” Early on, in his Arkansas days, he was appropriately nicknamed Slick Willy because he was, and is, so incredibly slick in his lies, deceits and manipulations of the ignorant, voting public.
No one should be foolish enough to try to blame the Republicans, or even Clinton’s enemies back in Arkansas, for the attachment of the nominative “Slick Willy” to Bill Clinton. In truth, an Illinois businessman named Jack Wagner sells a “Slick Willy” brand of merchandise (T shirts and other novelties). He applied for a trade mark to protect the “Slick Willy” brand name of his merchandise.
The US Trademark Office disapproved his request because the name “Slick Willy” is a nickname which applies to Bill Clinton (Jan 3-9, 2000, “Washington Times,” p. 16). Other companies (including a condom manufacturer) have tried unsuccessfully, to patent their use of the same name. Though the US government won’t allow trademarks on the name Slick Willy, evidently people using it can continue doing so.
Clinton is not called for nothing the Slick Meister (radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s name for Clinton), Slick, Slick Willy, President Slick and/or the Teflon president (because nothing sticks). He has earned those names. He is truly one of the most professional and smoothest liars in American history (and that’s saying a lot).
All men are liars from time to time, whenever they are presumptuously communicating something other than the absolute truth--either deliberately (in the Clinton mode) or in sincere ignorance (Num 23:19; Ps 116:11; Rom 3:4). This “all” indictment includes all of society--Christians, Jews, Muslims, politicians and on and on.
The Master Liar
It has to be significant that one of Slick’s fellow Democrats, US Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska, candidly suggested one day that Clinton was the most professional and smoothest liar he had ever known in his life. Truly, Slick will never bat an eye as he convincingly lies and deceives the ignorant, gullible public.
In his video on “Cheque Mate: The Game of Princes,” Jeff Baker said that the Republicans lie out of the right side of their mouths and the Democrats lie out of the left side. But Bill Clinton lies out of both sides.
Beyond Clinton, other deliberate liars are generally not quite so slick and professional at biting their lower lips and looking innocent. Most of us get caught in our lies and deceptions, and could never successfully pull off the scams which he does.
This is particularly true with deliberate lies which we might tell, if the truth is out there ready for exposure. In our case, we would usually get trapped in our lies and have to pay a terrible price. But even when subsequent events unfold to disclose Slick’s deliberate lies, he largely still gets away with them.
In testimony before the US courts, Clinton has gone to great trouble and effort to choose his words very carefully when testifying of his various sexual encounters with women over the years. Purposely, he has demanded that questions to him in court include detailed definitions of sex--so that he can find and use a loophole in the definition to allow him to purposely lie and deceive the court.
Actually, Slick has used this process for years now--not only in his various appearances before the US courts, but also in his speeches and words to the gullible American public. Truth, and the telling of truth, are absolutely not on his agenda. Instead, he carefully crafts his words so that truth is hid and deception is the order of the day.
Truly Bill Clinton, the former president, is a master liar, cheat and fraud. He is one of the few persons alive today who has puffed on a marijuana cigarette and has never been guilty of smoking the weed (because he says that he didn’t inhale).
He is one of the few married people who can be involved in an act of sodomy in the White House (which Slick defines as an inappropriate relationship) and still not have been involved in a sexual relationship; nor has he committed adultery, per the accepted Christian definition of adultery.
He can say things in one breath and immediately say something totally different in the next breath, all the while claiming that he told the truth in both cases. He can do things, and yet not have done them. Is this called double talk? If not, what is it?
With his sly, cunning and crafty method of choosing his words, it is often hard for his political opponents to come along and prove him in a bare faced lie later, and particularly while the public continues to support him. In the generic sense, he uses his words in ways that will allow him to weasel out of any pit falls if his needs should later dictate.
It is true that there are any number of deceitful, dishonest, wicked people out in the real world, just like Slick Clinton. Perhaps to accommodate them and establish truth and righteousness in such concrete terms, YHWH has seen fit to legislate a whole series of statutes and judgments which go into excruciating detail to define, clarify and interpret His commandments--so that no one can fail to understand them.
YHWH’s Laws Establish Principles
Above all else, YHWH’s laws, either individually or in appropriate groupings, establish broad principles and outlines of The ELOHIM’s thinking and position on a particular theme. Consequently, it isn’t only what the law says; but moreover, the true believer can study the law or laws and ascertain tremendous principles which reflect The MOST HIGH’s personality, thinking and perception on a given subject.
For example, the Torah says that we are not to plow with an ox and ass together (Deut 22:10)--obviously, this would put the ass at a disadvantage and hurt him. The Torah also says that if we see an ox or ass fallen by the way (into a pit, per Lu 14:5), we are to help him up (Deut 22:3). Also, the Torah says we are not to take a bird (to kill/eat) from a nest with chicks (Deut 22:6).
In these three cases and many more like them, YHWH is establishing a broad principle that man, in his dominion over birds and animals, is not to abuse or hurt them or allow them to suffer unnecessarily. Does this mean that man can’t kill them for food? Of course not--because YHWH elsewhere prescribes clean animals for food.
This writer had a friend who flew to Pagan Island in the North Pacific for a visit. Pagan was uninhabited, except for two Filipino workers and thousands of pigs, goats and other animals which were running wild. Whenever the Filipinos wanted to feast, they would butcher a hog. In my friend’s presence, they caught a big, fat hog and commenced the butchering process.
However, instead of just killing the pig outright, the two stupid, evil Filipinos started torturing it to death, and all the while they laughed and giggled over the affair. They would stick the pig with a knife to let him squeal and suffer, while they had a good time watching him slowly bleed to death. My friend became very angry at them over their wickedness.
Also, as will be noted in later chapters, Asians like to skin animals alive before butchering them. They are not unique in this depravity because modern American packing plants are likewise very brutal in the slaughter of animals. For instance, the Oct-Dec 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 54) had some findings on animal abuse in America.
This source reported that videos have captured on film the abuses in slaughterhouses--like “Struggling cows being hoisted upside down and butchered--while still alive, cows being hit repeatedly with ineffective stunning devices, cows being trampled as workers force other cattle to run over them, disabled cows being chained at the neck and dragged into the box to be stunned and cows being tormented and repeatedly shocked with electric prods (one worker was shown shoving the electric prod into a cow’s mouth. The prods are to cause them to move ahead to be slaughtered).”
“Petah Tikvah” cited the case at the IBH slaughterhouse in Washington State (the largest one in America). Workers say about 10% of the butchered cattle go through the skinning process alive. Many are conscious after stunning but lose consciousness before the skinning process. Manifestly, this is not YHWH’s way!
More
On other occasions, this writer has seen animals abused and mistreated by stupid, evil people. One of the classic cases occurred some years ago near Parma, Idaho.
There was a man near Parma who had a herd of perhaps 15 horses, which he kept pastured in an open field of about 40 acres. Whether or not he ever brought in any hay for them is uncertain. At least, this writer never saw any hay delivered over a period of two years or so. Logically, he brought some hay in sometimes because snow often covered the ground in the winter.
He had a small water line, which he periodically turned on, to bring in water to cause a large puddle of water on the ground that they drank from. In the winter, the line sometimes froze up, and there was no water for them--even seemingly, for days (maybe, they could lick up a little snow or moisture from frozen ice).
Whoever this man was, he was evil and in manifest sin because this is not YHWH’s way. On rare occasions, the temperature could plunge to 20 degrees below zero. It was a pitiful and pathetic sight to watch those animals trying to scrounge for food and water, which sometimes just was not readily available. For sure, some colts did die occasionally because i have seen their dead bodies in the field.
An article on cruelty to animals in the “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 36) says that cruelty to animals is prohibited by the seven commandments given to Noah.
This source adds that its avoidance requires slaughtering animals humanely; not muzzling an ox when it ploughs (Deut 25:4); allowing animals a Sabbath of rest (Ex 23:12); feeding animals before eating; not buying animals one cannot properly feed; and showing mercy to animals. Yes, it is sin to abuse or hurt animals improperly.
The ONE LAWGIVER
In the Tanakh, and indeed in the NT, The MOST HIGH YHWH is recognized as The True LAWGIVER, although Moshe was the scribe who wrote down His words in the Torah. Since YHWH became YESHUA in the NT (as discussed in a previous chapter), it is manifest that effectively He was The LAWGIVER.
No other persons or writers had (or have) the authority to dictate law. Like the New Testament Scriptures declare--there is only ONE LAWGIVER (Jas 4:12). Beyond This ONE LAWGIVER and His given law in the Torah, all of the other OT and NT writers, prophets, apostles, etc were essentially only interpreters of the law (Torah). None of the prophets, apostles, writers, etc were lawgivers.
In other words, the prophets and apostles were giving their opinions, thoughts and ideas (correctly, judgments under inspiration) on what YHWH’s law (Genesis through Deuteronomy) said, and how it was to be applied in given situations--usually, in the context of how the people were sinning and violating YAH’s Torah (the OT prophets especially were commissioned to point out the people’s sins).
Beyond The ONE LAWGIVER and His appropriately commissioned interpreters (judges, prophets, apostles, etc), no one else has been commissioned or charged to Scripturally define or formally interpret law.
The Bottom Line
The closure of the Torah ended YHWH’s statements on law (which is proven in Deut 4:1-2 and 12:32, as covered elsewhere herein), and the closure of the NT ended YAH’s formal legal interpretations of His law.
As discussed in the above comments, it is obvious that the faithful followers of that ONE LAWGIVER today have no authority to be the judges of the law (that is speaking evil, condemning and/or opposing the law or deciding upon its legal status) which The ONE LAWGIVER gave (Jas 4:11).
Clearly, there is no authority for the likes of Ellen White, Joseph Smith or any of the other so-called Christian prophets. Christians may love, follow and be devoted to their human prophets. But those persons are sadly lacking in terms of truth and the Word.
Chapter 33--The Definition of Sin
The Real Issue
This chapter will address the question of sin, which Christianity has struggled with for ages in an attempt to define and understand. In truth, Christianity has completely missed the boat in these years of supposedly considering the question. This chapter will assess it.
But first, there are several underlying principles and facts which need to be brought out and stressed.
As was mentioned in the prior chapter, the Hebrew word “Torah,” meaning instructions, teachings, doctrines and laws as found in the totality of the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy, commonly has been translated into the Greek Old and New Testaments as “nomos,” meaning law.
English translators picked up this Greek attitude toward the Torah. The result has been that, in English translations of both Testaments, Torah and the Greek nomos are routinely translated into English as law (though Torah should be transliterated in appropriate situations). While the case probably can be built that the commandments in the Torah are laws, such a translation may present some difficulties.
Anyway, this condition leads one to study, talk about and define the OT law instead of the Tanakh Torah. The whole focus should be on the issue of the Torah and not necessarily on the law. It is questionable that the word Torah is exactly synonymous with the English word law or the Greek nomos.
The reader of English translations must usually begin to think in terms of, or at least consider, the Torah whenever the word law comes up in the Scriptures. As outlined in the former chapter, the Hebrew word Torah does not apply in all cases for the Greek “nomos” in the Septuagint or the NT, but it applies in most cases.
No New Laws on Right and Wrong
As was broached slightly in the former chapter, many misinformed and ignorant Christians “assume” that The MESSIAH came and abolished the Old Testament laws (or correctly the Torah).
To fill in this void of no laws establishing and defining righteousness and sin, many Christians believe that the NT writers proceeded to issue “new” teachings and instructions to redefine sin and righteousness for the benefit of the Christian community (which is what Stephen Jones alluded to in his previously quoted comments).
No! Absolutely not at all! Neither Kefa, Yakov, Yohanan, Shaul or anyone else in the NT (except YESHUA) had any authority, status or legal right to dictate law beyond YHWH (as recorded by Moshe). Even YESHUA (Who was/is YHWH) evidently issued no new laws in the NT. The only thing that He did do was to clarify and interpret existing law.
This condition was clearly established by Moshe in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and 12:32, as cited earlier herein. When Moshe completed the Torah (as given by YHWH), no one further has any authority whatsoever to add to his writings in Genesis to Deuteronomy in the sense of law, sin and righteousness. This lets out all of the other OT and NT writers as well as all Christian Church leaders/writers for the past 2,000 years.
As outlined above, and previously, all that the NT people accomplished was to recognize given laws and interpret and apply them in various situations--just as the OT judges and prophets had done in their day. In that sense, the NT personalities closely resembled the OT judges and prophets, at least in terms of their works and messages.
Thus, when Shaul wrote about the hair length for men and women (in I Cor 11:3-15, to be discussed in a later chapter), he was not establishing laws for the Apostolic Assembly. Actually, he was giving his opinion or judgment and clarifying and interpreting some OT laws which were already in place and had authority from the Torah (which is very clear on men, but somewhat complicated on women).
In other words, it is YHWH’s mitzwot in the Torah which expressly make it a sin for a man to have long hair, or for a woman to cut her hair short (these issues will be further discussed in later chapters). The NT Apostle Shaul came along and clarified them somewhat, and restated them with some emphasis.
Rabbinic Teaching Methods
In Second Temple days, the Tanakh was handwritten in Hebrew scrolls. Since these scrolls were tedious to prepare, they were very expensive to own. Few people could afford them. Even the few scrolls owned by families were generally safeguarded in secure places and not carried out of the people’s homes for use in public meetings.
Accordingly, the people from their childhoods memorized much of the textual presentations, and particularly the Torah (either from handed down oral teachings or from the few scrolls which were available). Obviously, memorization was the prevailing situation with the Talmud, the so-called Oral Law, to be later addressed.
Jim Myers, of Texas, notes that whenever a “rabbi” wanted to teach on a subject his normal procedure was merely to quote a verse, or line or two from one of the books, and the people would be able at once to recall the entire text from their memories (No 3, 1999, “Discovering the Bible,” p. 5). There was no need to quote the entire text since the people knew it.
Once the focus was placed on the text, the “rabbi” would proceed to offer his commentary and understanding of the text. YESHUA was a Second Temple RABBI. Per Myers, He merely followed the standard Rabbinic teaching practice. He would quote, or make reference to a line or two from the Tanakh, and then proceed on with His commentary, in the context that the people were already familiar with the Scripture.
Although Myers did not mention the other Apostolic teachers (like Shaul, Kefa, etc), the same teaching situation seems to apply to them. In bringing up a text from the Tanakh, there was no need to quote it completely. All one had to do was to briefly identify it with a few words, and the people would recall the text at once and its general outline.
Myers makes the point that modern students of the Word (who are not familiar with the OT texts) would do well to open up, compare and review the Tanakh quotations completely, in context, in the study of NT commentaries by YESHUA.
The writer of this study would note that this same reasoning applies to all NT quotations from the Tanakh. Obviously, this method does not imply that the text under discussion was done away with or abolished. For sure, the text applied fully to deserve NT commentary.
The Law Was Not Destroyed
Regarding the Old Testament law, it is relevant both to the subject, and of interest, that The ANOINTED ONE, Himself, said to think "not" that He had come to "destroy" (or abolish) the law (the Torah) because He did not come to destroy it; but rather, He did come to obey it and live it fully (as the Greek text literally has it at Matthew 5:17-18--per Jameison, Fausset and Brown’s “Commentary on the Old and New Testaments").
Yet, in total opposition to what He plainly and conclusively said, Christendom's entire theology is built on the premise that SALVATION "abolished" the law by fulfilling it. Naturally, she preaches and publicizes this nonsense to the multiplied millions and billions of people all over the world. It seems that it is a rare person who would dare come forward to actually check the Scriptures on the issue.
Surely, any person with brains above the moron level should be suspicious that something smells when one reads Matthew 5:17-18, where YESHUA said that He did not come to destroy or abolish the law, as opposed to Christendom’s interpretation of that statement (by believing that when YESHUA fulfilled the law, He abolished and terminated it).
Obviously, something is wrong with Churchianity’s interpretation of that text. With Christendom’s interpretation and wishful thinking, the two resulting positions are contradictory and hopelessly confusing. Of course, the truth is that the Greek word, translated as “fulfilled” (pleroo), as used in Matthew 5:17, does not mean, or even suggest, a termination or ending of the subject (law).
No! The Greek “pleroo” more correctly means “live fully,” as noted above, to include doing, performing or accomplishing the subject. In other words, YESHUA came to obey the law fully and to perform and accomplish the Old Testament commandments perfectly without sin or transgression.
If there is any doubt about this true and correct meaning for the Greek pleroo, then all one has to do is check Matthew 3:15 where the text notes that as Yohanan baptized YESHUA--The MESSIAH said that it was to fulfill (Greek pleroo) all righteousness.
How many Christians will be naive, stupid or rebellious enough to come forward now and declare that all righteousness was terminated, abolished and done away with simply because YESHUA fulfilled (pleroo) it at His baptism?
No! YESHUA did not abolish, terminate or end righteousness when He was baptized. All that He did was to perform it and live it in His actions.
The MESSIAH made a number of other statements which also conclusively proved that He did not do away with the Torah. One of these important texts surfaced when He remarked that certain evil Pharisees and scribes “sit in Moshe’s seat” (Matt 23:2).
As Professor Shmuel Safrai of Hebrew University indicates from ancient Midrashic literature, the early Second Temple synagogues seem to have had a “seat of Moshe,” actually used for teaching Torah (“Jerusalem Perspective,” Jan/Jun 1994). Most interpreters readily accept YESHUA’s Words as being His acknowledgment that these teachers were inheritors of Moshe’s authority, and thus legally could teach the Torah.
But a problem apparently arose in YESHUA’s next comment that the KJV has as “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matt 23:3). A first reading of this would suggest that YESHUA’s followers should be obeying the words (not the hypocritical actions) of these evil Pharisees and scribes who possessed the authority of Moshe.
A Problem With the Greek
But there can be some problems when accepting this King James Version statement as translating the underlying Greek text. A man named Ross Nichols had an article on the Internet in early 1997 which focused on these remarks, and the ensuing dilemma, when one compares that statement with other conflicting and contradictory statements elsewhere in the NT.
Thus, YESHUA also said that these “Pharisees and scribes” taught the commandments of men which made void the commandments of YAH (Matt 15:6); their teachings were plants (of an enemy) which will be uprooted by YAH (Matt 13:37-39; 15:3); they placed emphasis on human ordinances which were for show in the outer man while ignoring the inner man (Matt 23:25-28); their teachings were like leaven (Matt 16:11-12); they ignored the weightier matters in the Torah (Matt 23:23); and some of them (Sadducees?) knew not the Scriptures (Matt 22:29).
Nichols postulates that the Greek text of Matthew 23:2-3 (and its translation into most English versions) is at odds with the rest of Mattityahu (as shown in the above statements). Consequently, something is wrong with the Greek rendition. To offer a solution, Nichols turned to the work of Dr George Howard, Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia.
Howard made a translation of an ancient Hebrew text of the book of Matthew, allegedly restored and used by one Shem Tob ben Isaac ben Shaprut (as briefly cited in a former chapter). This text was based upon an earlier work; evidently used, maintained and circulated within Jewish religious circles for many, long centuries in the vein of being used by the Jews to critique Christianity and Christian writings.
Apparently, this Hebrew Matthew text first surfaced in the 14th century (c1380 CE) as a part of a Jewish polemical treatise prepared by Shem Tob (“Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended,” p. 37). But the basis of this Hebrew text of Matthew clearly was much older, perhaps dating to the Apostolic Assembly or at least to the later Ebionites (“Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,” by Dr George Howard, p. 157-160, 221-234).
Incidentally, it is interesting that the Jews, from the standpoint of an adversarial role, maintained and communicated this book of Matthew in the Hebrew language for many long centuries (in Scriptural Hebrew, with a mixture of Mishnaic Hebrew and later Rabbinic contributions). Thus, the question must come up--is it possible that this Jewish work had anything to do with their commission from YHWH (per Rom 3:2)?
Ross Nichols’ View
Evidently, Howard’s translation of this Shem Tob work gained some popular recognition in modern times and came to Nichols’ attention.
Based on Howard’s translation, the Hebrew at Matthew 23:2-3 reads “Upon the seat of Moshe the Pharisees and Sages sit, but now all which He (referring to Moshe) will say to you, keep and do, but their (referring to the Pharisees and Sages sitting on Moshe’s seat) ordinances and deeds do not do because they say and do not.” In other words, there has evidently been some mis-stated pronouns in the Greek text.
As Nichols notes, there is a clear distinction to be made between what HE (singular--Moshe) says, as opposed to what THEY (plural--the Pharisees and scribes) say. In addition to the Hebrew rendition, Nichols notes that an old Latin manuscript has the same correct presentation. Clearly, YESHUA says that His followers should be obeying Moshe (the Torah) from the Hebrew text.
Even if the Greek was right, it still would say to obey the Torah as correctly taught by the Jewish leaders. Either way, there is no possibility of believing that the Torah (law) was done away with in that presentation.
The point of this whole matter is that however that text is to be translated, the fact remains that it presents authority for the Torah as recorded by Moshe. It echoes an earlier statement of Yeshayahu (Isa 8:20).
Also, YESHUA was later to give still more status to Moshe when He used a parable to say that if people won’t hear (study and learn) Moshe and the prophets, they will not hear one risen from the dead (Lu 16:31). In another instance, He said that since people won’t believe (study to believe) Moshe, they will not believe Him (Jo 5:46-47).
Since Christians refuse to believe or hear Moshe (in their willful failure to read, study, learn, understand and obey Moshe), how in the world is it ever possible that they can hear and believe YESHUA? To hear, believe and comprehend The MESSIAH, it is categorically essential to hear, believe and understand Moshe--by study and obedience! The two are inexorably linked together.
Acts 21:17-28
Late in the ministry of Shaul, perhaps around 60 CE or so, Shaul decided to go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and to see Yakov and the Jerusalem brethren. Upon arrival, he found that the Jerusalem congregation consisted of “thousands” of believers who were “zealous” (or passionate) for the Torah (Acts 21:17-28).
These believers had (incorrectly) heard that Shaul was teaching against circumcision and Jewish customs (in the Torah) in his missionary journeys. This apparently concerned the collective thousands of them, as well as Yakov. So Yakov proposed that Shaul go to the Temple and offer a sacrifice for himself, and also pay for the Temple sacrifices of four of the NT brethren who had been under a vow.
To prove that he still supported the Torah, Shaul complied (the significance of this act will be discussed in the following chapters), and actually went on later to declare that he had never spoken or acted against the customs of the Jewish people (Acts 28:17).
Surely, Shaul’s own actions and statements would be sufficient to prove that any allegations suggesting that Shaul was against the Torah or customs of the Jews would have to be wrong. No way would he be such a classic hypocrite to say and do things in one place (like in Asia Minor), and then do and say something different in Jerusalem.
More Powerful Statements
In truth, The SON OF ADAM also said that whomsoever teaches against and disobeys the least of the commandments in the law (the Torah) will be called the "least" in His kingdom (Matt 5:19). Since Christianity has declared the law dead, and since most Christians flagrantly and willfully violate much of it, one can readily see "who" will be "least" in the kingdom (also see Jer 23:36).
In another important verse, Shlomo wisely wrote that the person who turns his ear away from hearing The SOVEREIGN's law (Torah--Genesis through Deuteronomy), even his prayer shall be an abomination (Prov 28:9). Of course, Christians generally turn their ears away from hearing the Torah.
Therefore, will The HIGHEST listen to their abominable prayers? No way (Job 35:13; Prov 15:29; Isa 59:1-3; Mic 3:4; Zech 7:12-13; Jo 9:31)! This point will be elaborated upon in a later chapter.
In one more powerful message, the Book reflects upon some (sinning) people who cry and moan frequently about "the burden" of The MOST HIGH (which they say is His Word--Jer 23:33-38). Now, what do you suppose this prophesy could be referring to? Is it not apparent that when Christians condemn The CREATOR's laws and call them a burden that they are fulfilling (not ending, but only accomplishing) this text?
While space is too limited herein for a review of the hundreds and hundreds of Scriptures which make an abolition of The SUPREME's laws totally out of the question, it will be well to consider a further message. At least twice, The MESSIAH said that His teachings and doctrines were not His Own--but rather, were of "He" Who sent Him (Jo 7:16; 14:24).
Based on these writings by Yohanan, how can anyone be naive enough to come forth and proclaim that The ANOINTED ONE would dare destroy the laws of His "sender" (irrespective of how one may view the question of the so-called "godhead" in these communications).
The essence of this is that the law (Torah) has never been abolished because as long as heaven and earth endure, even the smallest letter (the yod in the Hebrew alphabet) can not pass away or be destroyed from the law (Matt 5:18). Since heaven and earth have not yet passed away, there is absolutely nothing, in fact, which would permit a student of truth to perceive an abolishment or ending of YHWH’s law.
“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana”
In the fifth century CE, a famous Jewish sage of Palestine named Kahana gathered and edited all of the discourses (known as piskas) that had been delivered in the Palestinian synagogues and schools on special Sabbaths and festive occasions for almost five centuries.
His work,