They gave it to their pastor and had him listen to it, and then he replied back, and he brought up a lot of the common objections that we hear from mainstream Christians regarding the Torah.
And we're going to break from the normal way of doing things this week a little bit, and we're going to share with you the reply that I had written back. And, hopefully, we have time, and we'll get his reply and then my second reply to him.
And I thought it would be good to share that, because I know a lot of you are facing these kinds of questions and these kinds of situations.
And I really want to see the body of Messiah equipped, as much as possible, to be able to adequately defend the faith that was once delivered to the saints and also address a lot of this, the common misnomers that are found regarding the Torah.
And so we're going to go over this today; and, hopefully, I'll get time to go over this one and the following one. And then at the end, we'll open the mic and the phone lines for questions and comments.
So, anyway, he wrote back, and after listening to my study on the, "Is the Law Jewish?" topic, as we can often expect, the first thing they want to go to is the book of Galatians.
And so, anyway, this pastor--I'm going to keep the names anonymous here. And the pastor said, first, he needs to study the book of Galatians, which Paul emphasizes to the church. I'm going to use his words here, if that's okay.
He said, "Paul's emphasis to the church that Christ has freed us from the bondage of the law and given us liberty in Jesus Christ and the Gospel." So that was his initial reaction.
And so I replied back, and I said, "Well, I have studied the book of Galatians thoroughly and would agree that we are not in bondage, because the Messiah has set us free, but the law is not a necessary evil, as some portray it. It is holy, just, and good. The problem is we have been unjust, unholy, and evil.
"The law itself is not bondage; sin is bondage, and the law demonstrates that we are all under sin. The Messiah made us free from sin, and I would hope that we would agree that our freedom is not a willfully sin all you want and still get to heaven kind of freedom.
"The main point of the study which I shared was to demonstrate that some of the commandments that people assume are only for Jews are actually for everyone. And so the real question I'm trying to get at is, what is sin? And scripture seems pretty clear.
1John 3:4 - Whoever commits sin trangresses also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.
"Now, I would have to agree with John the apostle. He said that sin is a transgression of the law. Sin is sin, no matter what your ancestry happens to be. I would also have to agree with Paul that the law teaches us what sin is.
Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the law sin? By no means! Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
"And so we have here these scriptures, which clearly demonstrate that sin is a transgression of the law. And Romans 3:20 says by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 7:7 says I had not known sin, except by the law.
"And so if somebody wants to disobey one of the Ten Commandments, which are clearly a part of the law, then it's pretty obvious they are sinning, and the commandment to keep the Sabbath is clearly one of them.
"If I'm a shepherd living on a farm in southern Missouri, and suppose I had seven wool sheep in my flock, and I told my son to go out in the field and shear the seventh sheep, a sheep that I had set aside for a special purpose.
"He then proceeded to go up the hill, and while looking at the sheep, there was one he liked better than the seventh sheep, which I had told him to shear. And he picked out the first sheep, and he sheared it, ignoring what I had said about shearing the seventh sheep.
"So he then brought me the wool. So my question to you is, if my son had done this, did he do my will? Clearly not. He disobeyed my commandment.
"Now, our heavenly Father rested on the seventh day as an example for us. He blessed that day and sanctified that day at creation, making it a holy day. We are told to remember that day and to keep it holy.
"If we choose any other day to remember and keep holy, we are not doing our Father's will either. We're clearly disobeying a very clear commandment; and, therefore, we would be sinning."
And that was my reply to his "need to listen to Galatians" comment. Now, his next reply was, "Notice Galatians 2:16. It says that we are justified by faith in Christ," he wrote, "not by works of the law."
And my reply was this: "Very true, we are not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in the Messiah. To be justified means to be declared righteous. That's what the meaning of justified is.
"The law does not declare us righteous. It only condemns us, because not one of us has ever kept the law. And so through Messiah alone, we are justified or declared righteous, and not by our own works. But does this mean that we are free to willfully sin?
Romans 6:1 - What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
"And so the standard of righteousness does not change when we accept the Messiah; His standard remains forever. But our standing before Yahweh does, when we accept Yahushua.
"So is it right to say that everyone else in the world is expected to refrain from sin, which is transgression of the law, and they will be condemned for their failure to keep that law, if they even fail in one point?
"But then say that those who receive the Messiah are free to purposely transgress those same points of the law anytime they want to? Is it really right to say that? As Paul said, Yahweh forbid."
His next point, in pointing out Galatians, he says, "Chapter 3 tells us we receive the spirit, not by the works of the law, but by faith. We are not made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit."
And my reply to that comment is this: "We receive the Spirit by faith in Messiah, which justifies us, and not by our works, which falls short of His glory. Our imperfect flesh is totally incapable of perfecting us. But does this mean that we are free now to willfully sin?"
Romans 6:1 - What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
And then he goes on and points out Galatians 3. It says--he wrote, "Galatians 3:24 tells us that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but when faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." He needs to study the whole book of Galatians.
My reply was this: "True, we are no longer under the law. We are no longer under the schoolmaster, which had the intent of bringing us to Messiah, through confining or concluding us all under sin. If we were under the law, we would be under condemnation for breaking it; but, instead, we are under grace.
"However, the fact that we are not under the law, though it be true, we need to come to an understanding that we're not above the law either. We should not continue to willfully sin, transgress that law, that grace may abound."
Romans 6:15 - What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? By no means!
Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
So we're trying to stay on course here of defining what sin is and also understanding the importance that our law-keeping doesn't save us, but it's Messiah's righteousness that saves us.
So then he says--he pulls out Colossians, and he says, "Colossians 2:14 tells us He took the law and the ordinances out of the way, nailing it to the cross. Verse 16, 'We are not to be judged in meat or drink or in respect to any holy days, or new moons, or sabbath. It's a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.'"
And that was his reply or his point. And then I said this: "Up to this point, I have agreed with what you have written, for the most part, but on this point I would have to differ. If He took the law out of the way, then sin is no longer a transgression of the law."
And so what was the true meaning here in Colossians 2:14? Let's read it, Colossians 2:13-14:
Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Colossians 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
All right, I think that we would all agree that it was the Messiah who was actually nailed to the tree and not some list of commandments. And so what was actually meant here?
Well, let's remember, first of all, that it was the Messiah who became sin for us. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, it says:
2Corinthians 5:21 - He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of YAHWEH in Him.
On Him was laid the iniquity of us all. And so what was actually nailed to the cross or the tree? The Messiah is the one who was actually nailed to the tree, the Messiah who was made to be sin for us, the Messiah upon whom was laid the iniquity of the entire world.
Sin, therefore, was nailed to the tree, because the Messiah was nailed to the tree, having been made sin for us. Now bear with me on this point, while I explain further.
The Greek word translated "ordinances" in Colossians 2:14 is not the normal word for "law," which is "nomos" in the Greek, but it is the rare word "dogma," which is Strong's 1278.
Dogma, without exception, is always used in reference to the ordinances of men and is never used in the reference, any reference to Yahweh's law.
It is used in reference to Caesar's decrees in Luke 2:1 and Acts 17:7 and the apostolic decrees in Acts 16:4, which came from the ruling of the apostles in Acts 15.
Now, in Colossians, dogma is clearly speaking of men's commandments, because this is the very context of the entire chapter. In Colossians 2:8, Paul warns the Colossians against the philosophies which were very common in Greek culture.
He further identifies the dogmas coming out of these philosophies as worship of angels, touch not, taste not, handle not, voluntary humility, neglect of the body and will worship.
And so then he specifically identifies these things, these dogmas as commandments of men in verse 21, even calling them dogmatizo in verse 20, which is the word translated "ordinances of men."
These kinds of ordinances were among the sinful ascetic practices of the heathen culture in those days. Asceticism is a element of worship that involves the denying of anything pleasurable whatsoever. That's asceticism.
Now, sin is what was nailed to the tree, because Yahushua, who became sin for us, was nailed to the tree. And these practices, like the worship of angels and so on, were a part of sinful behavior, which stemmed from a false philosophy.
And so these were among the sinful things that were nailed to the tree when the Messiah, who became sin for us, was nailed to the tree. So what about verses 16 and 17. It says:
Colossians 2:16 - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17 - Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of the Messiah.
Now, notice carefully it says that the Sabbath day, presently, your Sabbath days "are" a shadow of things to come and not "were." Very different.
It's very different to say "are" a shadow, because that would mean the Sabbath still exists. If the Sabbath has been abolished, then you would say it "was" a shadow of things to come.
But we're looking at the word "are," and that is what the Greek also supports. And so the Sabbath day presently is, and the new moon presently is, and the holy days presently are a shadow of things to come. They have not been done away with.
I think that you would have to agree with this point, because there's no other way to say it. Now, what about the word that says, "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Messiah."
Now, secondly, please notice here the word "is" in verse 17 is in italics. In your King James Bible, and some other translations, the translator would indicate places where he added to the scriptures by putting the word in italics.
Now, the word "is" being in italics is pretty significant here, because it completely changes things. When you read it without the "is," you have the phrase, "body of Messiah." Body of Messiah.
So when you read it with this "body of Messiah," this is a very common phrase in Greek. It says this: "Let no man judge you in meat, drink, holy days, new moons, Sabbath," etc., "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Messiah."
In other words, don't let anyone judge you in these commandment keeping areas, but the body of Messiah. So don't let those who practice heathen commandments of men judge you for keeping the true commandments in the scriptures.
Only the body of Messiah can judge the body of Messiah, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. He said:
1Corinthians 5:11 - But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Corinthians 5:12 - For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Corinthians 5:13 - But them that are without YAHWEH judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
And so it is acceptable for the body of Messiah to make judgments toward each other in matters of sin, which is transgression of the law. If we weren't allowed to make judgments, then we would be incapable of determining when a brother is even sinning, to begin with.
And so Paul is not saying here in Colossians, he's not saying let no man judge you for disobeying the Sabbath days. Rather, he is saying don't let outsiders judge you for keeping the Sabbath days.
Only the body of Messiah can judge the body of Messiah. The heathen were trying to pull the Colossians away from Yahweh's commandments and toward the philosophies and vain deceit of Colossians 2:8, along with the dogmas that came out of those philosophies and doctrines.
Now, I believe I'm interpreting this correctly, because if you keep reading beyond verse 17 here, Paul basically repeats himself, saying the same thing again in Colossians 2:18-19. He says:
Colossians 2:18 - Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
This is the dogmas of men.
Colossians 2:19 - And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of Elohim.
See, here we have, once again, the comparison of the dogmas of men versus the body of the Messiah and His judgments. In the previous two verses, we have the dogmas of men being compared--actually, the previous four verses--the dogmas of men being compared to the commandments and the things of the body of Messiah.
So, in other words, hold fast to the principles and judgment of Yahushua and His body of believers, rather than getting caught up in the commandments of men.
Now, the fact he lists worship of angels here clearly demonstrates he's not talking about commandments of the law, but talking about man's commandments. And if you continue the context here, it clearly bears out this fact. In Colossians 2:20, we continue to read. It says:
Colossians 2:20 - Wherefore if ye be dead with the Messiah from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Remember, we're dead to sin. We're dead to the world.
Colossians 2:20 - Wherefore if ye be dead with the Messiah from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
That word again, "dogmas."
Colossians 2:21 - (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Colossians 2:22 - Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
So, clearly, he's identifying here the commandments and doctrines of men:
Colossians 2:21 - (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
That's in parentheses here.
Colossians 2:22 - Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
These particular commandments had to do with things that men had invented, not things that Yahweh had invented. Yahweh would never want us to worship an angel. And so:
Colossians 2:23 - Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Colossians 3:1 - If ye then be risen with the Messiah, seek those things which are above, where the Messiah sitteth on the right hand of YAHWEH.
Colossians 3:2 - Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
And so this entire section of Colossians here is a contrast between the things of men versus the things of the Messiah. All the commandments of Yahweh came down from heaven, including the Ten Commandments, not from man.
The philosophies were a real stumbling block for Gentiles who needed to be re-educated and taught the heavenly things. I say heavenly things, because the law is not an earthly thing. The law is spiritual.
Romans 7:14 - For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
And so if we turn away from the carnal or worldly things, then we are going to be spiritual, as well. In Romans 8:5-7, we find a very interesting section of scripture. Romans 8:5-7, it says:
Romans 8:5 - For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Now, isn't this something that we often hear? "Well, we're doing the spiritual thing; you're doing the carnal thing." But what does it say here?
Romans 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against YAHWEH: for it is not subject to the law of YAHWEH, neither indeed can be.
And so if we turn to the spiritual things, and if we have this spiritual mind, then we are going to be subject to the law of Yahweh. Is that right? That's what it says here. I think you would have to agree with this, because this is what the scriptures plainly say.
He replies, to continue his point here. He is, again, for those of you just joining us, this is a pastor who is responding to the study which is on this website called, "Is the Law Jewish?"
And he says, he mentions, referring to me, this pastor talking here, he mentions that, "The keeping of the law gives us righteousness, but Christ is our righteousness. 2 Corinthians 5:21, James 2:10 tells us that whoever keeps the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
I replied back, saying, "I don't believe I said that, since I don't believe that way. Keeping the law would only give us righteousness if we had, indeed, kept it. But since none of us have kept it, all of us have at least offended on one point.
"We have to trust in the Messiah to be our righteousness. And so on this point, I think we actually agree that the law does not give us righteousness; only Messiah gives us righteousness."
And then he says this: "Part of the law, under Moses, tells us we cannot wear clothing if it is two different materials, such as polyester and cotton. Has he ever worn such clothing?"
Now, this is something that is very, very common technique by a lot of pastors today, as they try to--this is me talking, not what I wrote back.
They try to pick out something in the law, which they personally find ridiculous and stupid, and they'll bring up these different commands to try to mock anyone who would attempt to keep this, in their mind, antiquated, old law that no longer applies anymore. And so that is a very common technique.
Now, I replied back, and I said, "Well, this commandment appears to be a prohibition of possibly mixing animal fibers with plant fibers. I don't know if I've ever worn cotton and wool in the same garment. Quite possibly, I have. I don't anymore, though. And I do try to make my clothing to be 100%."
And I just left it at that. Then he says, "The law tells us we are not to eat of unclean animals, such as catfish, pigs, such as chickens, and yet Peter is told in Acts 10, when he sees all manner of unclean beasts, he is commanded to rise, kill, and eat.
"Peter says, 'Not so, Lord, I've never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' How could God command Peter to eat something that's unlawful for him to eat, if the law had not been fulfilled in Christ?"
And I replied back, "Well, first of all, chickens are not unclean, but catfish and pigs are definitely unclean. And Peter was given a vision here that was a parable. And after the vision, Peter himself did not know what it meant, according to Acts 10:17.
"But then he later concluded that it had a meaning of this, that he should not call any man common or unclean, and that's Acts 10:28. And so, again, this is a parable.
"The Jews of that time period would not keep company with a person from another nation, but that was a manmade law, and Peter (Kepha) needed to be corrected on this point.
"The Messiah had told them to go to all nations in Matthew 28:19, but they were not doing this, because they were following the Jewish practice of not keeping company with one of another nation.
"Now, we can speak further on this, but I think that we need to at least stick with the Ten Commandments as something we already agree should be kept."
And this is something that I do try to stay on task, because if they don't even accept the Ten Commandments as it's written, how are they going to accept the rest of Yahweh's commandments? And so we try to stay on task as much as possible.
Now, if you have some lingering questions about this point, I would point you to EliYah.com/clean.html for a full review of Acts 10 and also last week's study on Ephesians 2 in the Transcripts section of the website.
You'll be able to listen to and also read last week's study on this same area of scripture. Now, getting back to what this pastor happened to say here.
He said, "The law is true for us, but it does not teach us that obedience brings righteousness, but it teaches us that man cannot live up to God's standards, and we need a Savior. You cannot keep the law; therefore, by trying to keep the law, you cannot walk in truth."
And my reply to this point was, "I agree that our own efforts to produce salvation in ourselves, by keeping the law, are futile, and we need a Savior. The question is, once we have received the Savior, are we supposed to willfully continue in sin, transgressing the law, so that grace may abound?"
Staying on topic here. "Well, Paul and I both say no. Actually, I think you agree, but the question is this, 'What is sin?' The scriptures tell us the clear answer, and I think we ought to go with it."
And then he says, "Yes, the law is still there for us to learn from; certainly, much there is to be obeyed. 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' along with many other laws, but in themselves, they do not bring us righteousness. The new commandment is to love. Adultery is not of love; therefore, adultery is sin."
This is another common misconception that the law of Yahweh was inadequate, and so Yahushua had to come along and say that everything written in the law is about love, or that the law of Yahweh somehow never told us to love. But neither of them are true.
"Actually, the commandment to love is not a new commandment at all," I replied back. "The commandment to love actually comes from the law itself. Deuteronomy 6:5 says to love Yahweh. Leviticus 19:18 tells us to love our neighbor."
And Yahushua quoted them here, Matthew 22:36-40. He was asked a question:
Matthew 22:36 - Rabbi, which is the great commandment in the law?
Matthew 22:37 - Yahushua said unto him, Thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 - This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 - And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 - On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
"So Yahushua did teach that the very essence of the law and prophets is love. Everything written, every commandment therein has to do with Yahweh's desire for us to love Him and to love one another.
"Now, the picture I see in this verse here is a woodcarving of the two great commandments to love Yahweh and to love one another on two wooden slates, and the wooden slates have chains hanging down off of each of them, and the law and prophets are there hanging underneath the two slates by the chains.
"And so are we supposed to take a set of bolt cutters and cut the law and the prophets off the two commandments from which they hang? Every commandment in the law has to do with loving Yahweh and loving our neighbor, including the Sabbath commandment.
"Yahweh made the day holy and told us to remember it and to keep it holy. We cannot make any other day holy, no matter how hard we try. It is not loving toward Him to forget and ignore the day that He told us to remember.
"Profaning the things which He made holy is not love. The first four and possibly five commandments in the Ten Commandments have to do with loving Yahweh, and the remaining commandments have to do with loving our neighbor.
"Keeping those commandments are an act of love toward Yahweh and our neighbor. We cannot saw out, blot out, change, or alter Yahweh's commandments. They are written with His own finger to signify the finality of all ten of them.
And then Pastor So and So says this: "Paul condemned Peter in Galatians 2, because he tried to mix law and grace, and tried to compel the Gentiles to live as Jews. Read again Galatians 2:16."
Okay, I will read this, and tell you what I see here. In Galatians 2:11-13, it says:
Galatians 2:11 - Now when Kepha had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
Galatians 2:12 - for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:13 - And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
I'm reading from the King James here. Both "dissembled" and "dissimulation" mean hypocrisy, translated hypocrisy in most translations. And so why was it hypocritical, to begin with? Why was Paul bold enough to rebuke Kepha, or Peter, the man who walked with the Messiah for over three years?
Well, they had just had this council in Acts 15. They had all come to Antioch to deliver the decision to the brethren. And when everyone stood together at the council, Kepha and Barnabas both stood with Paul and agreed with the Good News that they had been proclaiming.
And so for both of them to withdraw from keeping company with the Gentiles was quite hypocritical. They were standing with the truth, that the Gentiles were to be accepted into the brotherhood and regarding as having received salvation in Acts 15.
But in actual practice, they're withdrawing and separating themselves from the Gentiles, out of concern for what those of the circumcision might say or might do.
Peter, or Kepha, was particularly at fault here, because he had walked with the Messiah for over three years, and he was the first one chosen to bring the Good News to the Gentiles, according to Acts 10.
Now, at that time, he was willing to fellowship with the Gentiles, and he defended it in Acts 11. And so here was a situation where some very important leaders are sinning and causing confusion among the Gentiles, by their action, which was contrary to the decision that was made in Acts 15.
And so Paul asks this question in Galatians 2:14-15:
Galatians 2:14 - But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the glad tidings, I said to Kepha before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
Galatians 2:15 - "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Now, I know that some would like to interpret this as Paul, in essence, saying, "If you are a Jew and have rightly abandoned the law, living with a Gentile, why do you compel the Gentiles to keep the law like a Jew by only eating with the Jews?"
That's how many like to look at this particular section of scripture. They like to say, "Well, if you're a Jew, and you know you've abandoned the law, why are you eating only with the Jews, so you can try to compel the Gentiles to live like they do?"
That's how most people look at it. And due to that interpretation, it's commonly understood this is a passage that supports the doctrine of Yahweh's law being abolished. However, verse 15 contradicts this interpretation completely, because Paul contrasts the Jews with the Gentiles, and he identifies the Gentiles as being sinners.
And so while many might think that Paul's statement of Peter living after the manner of a Gentile is actually a positive one, the truth is it's a negative statement, because in verse 15 Paul says, "We are not sinners of the Gentiles."
In other words, Paul is saying to Peter, he is saying this: "Peter, how can you ever bring the Gentile sinners into living a righteous life, like a Jew would, when you're acting like a sinner yourself in your hypocrisy?"
Now, this is a very convicting statement to Kepha that exposed the hypocrisy he was exhibiting there.
And so rather than Paul's rebuke being some kind of proof that we should not keep the law, it was simply a rebuke that Peter himself was sinning or transgressing the law, when he chose to fear man over Yahweh, pretend like he's going along with a false good news, and playing the hypocrite.
Now, the false good news, which wasn't good news at all, taught this. This is what the common teaching among some people in Judaism was at the time. First, repent and accept Yahushua, which I agree with. Then learn all the law and obey it. Then get circumcised.
Then, after you've been circumcised, you've learned the law of Yahweh and obeyed it, and you've repented, and you've accepted Yahushua, after you've done those things, the false gospel said, only then are you Abraham's seed and are you declared righteous.
That is a false gospel or false good news. It's not true, false evangel altogether.
The true Good News is this. Number one, you repent and accept Yahushua, Acts 2:38. And, number two, from that point on, you are Abraham's seed, and you are declared righteous. That's it.
Some of the Jews wanted everyone to go through these steps to conversion, but only one step was needed, and that's actually what the entire book of Galatians is all about.
But on this issue with Kepha, or Peter, the way I understand this issue is further evidenced when we look into the alternative readings in the older Greek manuscripts. Look at the comparison here. The King James reads this. It reads, "Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
And unless you look at the context, you might say, well, what are you trying to get the Gentiles to live like Jews for? Isn't the law abolished?
But the actual Nestle-Aland Greek text reads this. It reads, "How can you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" In other words, the question was not, "Kepha, what are you doing over there trying to get Gentiles to live like Jews? Don't you know the law is abolished?"
The real question was, "Kepha, how can you ever compel these Gentiles to keep the commandments like the Jewish man does, if you're sinning yourself?" That's the question.
Now, all the Greek texts are compatible with the way I'm understanding this issue, but the Nestle-Aland text would contradict the mainline Christian interpretation, because he's asking him, "How can you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews, as though it's something that you should be able to do?"
Whereas, the other text leaves it open, unless you examine the context fully. Okay, I'll consider a similar passage here in Romans 2:17-21, as I continue my reply here. It says:
Romans 2:17 - Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of Elohim,
Very interesting.
Romans 2:18 - And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
Romans 2:19 - And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
Romans 2:20 - An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Romans 2:21 - Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Again, Paul is making the point. If you're going to instruct others, then you need to keep that law yourselves. Now, the Jews, they knew the law, and Paul credits them with knowing the will of Yahweh, because they did know the law.
And so because they knew the will of Yahweh, and they did know the law, they were able to instruct others. And so he's pointing out, once again, basically the same thing he was saying to Peter, that if you want to instruct the Gentiles to keep the law of Yahweh, you need to keep the law of Yahweh yourself.
And Romans 2:17, I don't quite know how Christians would address that, because if a Jew knows the will of Yahweh, being instructed out of the law, I think that we also can learn the will of Yahweh, being instructed out of the law or the Torah.
I actually prefer to say Torah, but I've had too many people get confused and think that when I say Torah, I'm talking about Talmud, which is Jewish additions to the commandments, as though I'm following some kind of Jewish thing. I'd rather use a terminology someone is familiar with, than let them be confused and thinking I'm following rabbis.
All right, and then he makes the following point. He says that, "Although we are not under the law, yet we still keep a day of rest, which is called the Sabbath day, because men were called to do so before the giving of the law, but it is not to be confused with the day of worship, which we Christians keep as the first day of the week.
"The first day of the week is the pastor's hardest work day and is not a day of rest. It is a day of worship."
Now, I found that a very, very curious reply. And so I said, "Does this mean that you refrain from work on the Sabbath day and then do all your work then on Sunday, as a pastor of this church?"
And, actually, the Sabbath day was also a working day for the priests in the temple, and yet they were blameless. In Matthew 12:5-6, it says:
Matthew 12:5 - Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 12:6 - But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
That's because ministry is spiritual in focus, and ministries like that are not forbidden on the Sabbath; rather, it's actually commanded that we focus on spiritual things on the Sabbath.
And, also, the Sabbath day is when a holy convocation is supposed to be done. And so it is actually the day of worship. Leviticus 23:3 says:
Leviticus 23:3 - Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of YAHWEH in all your dwellings.
And that's why James 2:2 indicates that they were meeting in what was even then called a synagogue. James 2:2 says:
James 2:2 - For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes,
The word translated "assembly" there, if you look it up in your Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, it is the Greek word "sunagoge," from which we get "synagogue."
And so you look at this fact. Now, what day was the synagogue open for men to come in and hold meetings? Obviously, the Sabbath day. So that was the day of worship, not the first day of the week.
Now, then the pastor says this. The pastor said to me, "The Christian Gentile is not an Israelite or Jewish, but is the bride of Christ, His body, the church. We are two separate people of God. Spiritually, we are the children of Abraham, but not physically, as is the Jew, who has specific promises from God not given to the church.
"Therefore, we are separate people. Christian Gentiles are still Gentiles. Christian Jews are still Jews."
Interesting. "Now, I never suggested that Gentiles are physically Jews. I've never suggested that. But what I did suggest is that we are all the seed of Abraham, through the Messiah, and if we are all the seed of Abraham, through the Messiah, then it's no different than us saying we are all Israel, through the Messiah.
"But if what you said is actually true, that there are two separate people here, I have some questions for you I would like to get answers to."
And I gave him seven questions, and the first question was, "Why would Paul refer to Gentiles as, 'in time past Gentiles,' in Ephesians 2, indicating they're not Gentiles anymore, and then say they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, if the Gentiles were separate and did not inherit the same promises as Israel?
"The second question is why would Paul say there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in the Messiah Yahushua, in Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, Colossians 3:11? We are all one, so we're one people.
"Number three, if we have two camps, and the Jews are not a part of the bride of Messiah, are you excluding the 12 apostles and Paul himself from being a part of the bride? They were Jewish.
"And the fourth question, are the Gentiles not grafted into the natural branches and, therefore, becoming a part of the same tree? Romans 11.
"The fifth question I have is if Jews who rejected Messiah want to be a part of the natural tree, don't even they have to be grafted back in to that same tree? Romans 11:23.
"Number six, how can Gentiles be children of Abraham, but not be Israel? I don't see any difference between calling myself Abraham's seed and calling myself Israel. There is no difference. Galatians 3:28.
And the seventh question, "How can the Gentiles be a partaker of the New Covenant, unless they join themselves to Israel through the Messiah? Jeremiah 31:31 says that we are all--that the new covenant is only made with Israel and Judah. And so that's my seven questions for this particular pastor on that point. And then he replies--or doesn't reply.
He makes the point, "Today, one cannot keep the law, if he wanted to, for there is no priesthood; therefore, no legitimate sacrifice, and so one cannot keep these commandments. Christ is the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world, and not the Old Testament sacrifices or law. Hebrews 9."
I replied this. "If I told my son to do something, and he was truly unable to do it, I would not charge him with wrong. You see, there was no temple standing when Daniel was a prophet in Babylon, and yet he was blameless. He kept the law perfectly. Not perfectly, but he was very close to it. He was considered to be blameless.
"The physical tabernacle was simply the earthly representation of a true heavenly tabernacle. The sacrifices all pointed to the Messiah, and it's His sacrifice that truly cleanses us anyway. The sacrifices were never necessary to take away sin, but simply presented a picture of the One who does.
"The same is true of baptism, which by itself doesn't cleanse us from sin, but it's simply a picture of our cleansing and change in the Messiah. And so my point is, if there's a commandment somewhere, no matter where it's written, that is absolutely impossible for us to keep, I don't believe Yahweh is going to judge us for being unable to keep that commandment."
And then he says this: "There is much more that could be said. These are some thoughts I put down, as I listen to the Bible study. The new covenant and old covenant must be kept separate."
And my reply was, "I agree that they are to be kept separate, but do you see that the new covenant is only with Israel and Judah? Where are the Gentiles in that covenant?
"If the promises of the old covenant are only for Israel and Judah, on the basis that the Old Covenant is with Israel, by the same standard, would you not have to remove yourself from the promises of the new covenant?
"And if the law is written in our hearts, shouldn't obedience to the law be so reflected on our outer layer? Should not the works of our Savior, obedience to the law, be seen in us, the body of the Messiah? Or is it a more accurate picture of the Messiah when we are transgressor of the law? Which is it?
"Which is the more accurate picture? A law breaker or a law keeper? Which one best represents the Messiah and, therefore, the body of Messiah on the earth today? Wasn't it our transgressions of the law that brought about the need for the Messiah to die for us in the first place?
"Why, then, would we want to go back and repeat the wrong things that we did before? Why would we want to continue in sin, which is transgression of Yahweh's law, so that grace may abound? I realize that my view is not the popular view today, and I want to say that I'm not here to condemn anybody. I'm just pointing out that maybe the reformers didn't reform quite enough.
"Baptism by full immersion was very different than the common view in the 14th century. They believed that baptism was just you sprinkle with water. But somewhere along the line, somebody happened to notice what the scriptures taught, and they changed.
"And that's what I'm trying to encourage everyone to do. I think the reformers started well, but they did not go far enough in their reformations. I'm looking for the faith that was once delivered to the saints in the first century. Jude 1:3. Because anything after that point is subject to error. In Acts 20:29, that becomes very clear.
"Paul said, 'Soon after my departure, grievous wolves shall come in, not sparing the flock.' Let's avoid the wolves, and let's seek the true Shepherd, who will lead us in the paths of righteousness, so that we may be found where He is, and He may say to us, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant. You have walked in my footsteps.' After all, it's no longer we who live; it is Messiah who lives in us.'"
Thank you, brethren. That concludes my emailed response to this pastor, and we may go over the next one next week. We'll pray about that, but meanwhile Yahweh bless you, and may He have mercy on us all.