Tag: Law vs. Grace

Law vs. Grace

  • A Doctrine of Grace by Ronald L Dart

    A Doctrine of Grace by Ronald L Dart

    Download Sermon (MP3)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-4a7zpx’]

    Are we to find a doctrine of grace within the Old Testament?

    David hid himself in the field for three days. He had to take off without any preparation and they left in a hurry, they had taken no food. He was fleeing from King Saul. When they came to a place called Nob, by the time they got there they were in a bad situation. They needed food, and there was only one place that David knew of where he might get something to eat. The story is in 1 Samuel 21.

    1 Samuel 21:1, “Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?”

    Ahimelech was frightened that David was showing up there by himself, it was very unusual. For David, as one of the King’s top men, was always accompanied by a regiment of people. He had some fighters that traveled with him usually, who were men who were the type who wore their cloths out from the inside, they were tuff men. David was alone. But David said to Ahimelech the priest, who really was concerned and wanted to know why he was alone, said, “The king has commanded me a business, and he said to me ‘tell no man of the business I’m about to send you on that I commanded you’, and I…”, David said, “have sent my servants on ahead, I’ll be meeting them shortly” (1 Sam.21:2).

    Now David lied to the priest. Should he have done that? Well, in fact, he goes on now to compound his law-breaking.

    1 Samuel 21:3-6, “Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.”

    Now this is a real classic of realization. A reasoning your way around the law. Right? The law says no one but the priests can eat Holy bread (Exo.25:30, Lev.24:5). Well, we’ve got a problem. Maybe if the young men haven’t been close to women the past three days, and maybe with this it’s all right. And David said, “well, yea, in a manner of speaking, it’s common”, and he managed his way to work around it, and the priest gave him the shewbread to eat.

    If you were the judge, and this infraction was brought before you…because it is an infraction of the law, make no mistake about that, only the priests could eat Holy bread…what would you say? And how do you think God would judge this infraction of the law? Well, fortunately, we have a clue. Jesus himself evaluated this instance.

    Matthew 12:1-2, “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.”Now, a very interesting question comes up at this point. Was it, or was it not? Surely, by their interpretation, it was wrong for them to be plucking those ears of corn and eating on the Sabbath day. You’re supposed to get your food ready on Friday so you don’t have to do that kind of thing. Jesus replied:

    Matthew 12:3-4, “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?”Now, you think about that for a moment. Jesus was plainly ready to let David off. Not only that, he did not even argue with the Pharisees the question of whether it was right or wrong for his disciples to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day. In fact, he turns to David’s situation and he just says, “Look what David did! He did what was not lawful to do.”

    On what basis did Jesus let them off? On what basis was he prepared to justify David? Well, if you look at the situation, you have the crowd that says, “If you give them an inch they’ll take a mile”, and their idea is you don’t give that inch in the first place and then nobody can take the mile. Everything’s kept nice and neat, and everything is quite in order. This school of thought is exemplified by the Pharisees. They say to themselves, “Look, we’ve got to spell these things out. We’ve got to build a fence around the law so that people will not accidentally step over the line and break God’s law, thereby be defiled or incur God’s displeasure.”

    Now, there is a strange fear, and maybe you feel a little of it right now, that if we begin to let the barriers down, that people will take liberties, and they will abuse the law, and everything will get completely out of control. Well, I can tell you one thing, Jesus and the Pharisees were on completely opposite sides of the fence on this issue. On that, there can’t be much dispute.

    Now, somebody might have walked up to Jesus right after he had said this, and quoted him this scripture:

    Exodus 29:32-33, “And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.”

    That’s not the only scripture he could have quoted to Jesus, because, very plainly, if you go back to the law, the law does not make any room for exemptions on the shewbread. It’s for the priests, no one else. And the person would want to know, “Jesus? How can you justify what David did in light of these passages of scripture?” How do you suppose Jesus would have answered him?

    Well, I am going to try to answer that question for you in some detail. And, in the process, I’m going to explain to you one of the most important things you will ever learn about God and his law. In fact, if you can grasp what I’m about to say, it may revolutionize the way you read the Bible, the way you relate to God, and the way you relate to one another. Now, if this sounds a little presumptuous to you, well, we’ll let you listen and you can judge when I have finished.

    But first, I want to make three things clear. One: the law of the shewbread was not superseded or set aside by any of the actions of David. David did not have that kind of authority. The law of the shewbread was not unimportant. It was as important as any other law of God. It was the law of God then, it was the law when David did it, it was the law when Christ talked about it, and it was the law after that. Two: I am a radical believer in the law of God. Three: All rationalizations considered, David did break the law. Jesus said he ate the bread which was not lawful for him to eat.

    Why, then, does Jesus use this example in reply to the accusation that his disciples were breaking the Sabbath day? How is it possible for him to justify David? And how can he justify David when there is not a hint in the biblical account of any remorse on David’s part, of any repentance on David’s part, nor anything being done by David to make up for his error? Nothing. He just did it, and he went away. How can he do that?

    The answer comes in one word. It’s a familiar word. In fact, the word is too familiar. It’s been used and used and used, and I think it’s gotten to the place where nobody really has much of a clue what Jesus means when he uses this word, or when anyone else does for that matter. The word is “Grace”. A one syllable, short little word. Grace. And here is a sentence that’s so important, you might want to write it down, because I don’t want you to forget it. Grace is an Old Testament doctrine.

    Grace is an Old Testament doctrine. David, an Old Testament character, was justified, not because what he did was right, but because God is gracious. Isn’t that simple? Now I know you know that God is gracious. I know you heard that phrase, “God is gracious”. It may be a part of, “God is merciful, gracious, slow to anger”. You know, all these lines and words and descriptions of what God is like. God is gracious. I wonder, though, what we think that means. What does it mean to say that God is gracious? Well, one of the things I want to try to do today is to see if I can explain to you, clearly, what that means.

    There’s a beautiful example of the graciousness of God right in the very beginning of your Bible. God came to the end of all his creation, and finally, on the sixth day, he created man. He created man in his own image. And we’re told that he created man male and female. And he took the man and woman he created, both of them perfect physical specimens, beautiful creatures, well formed in every direction, fully mature, beautiful, gorgeous people, and they were, in God’s wisdom, completely naked. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply”.

    Now, there are two kinds of people listening to me today. There are the people who believe that God is all seeing, he knows everything that is happening, and that nothing in the world is hidden from him. Then there are the people who believe the book of Genesis is telling the truth. And the book of Genesis presents a different picture for us. For Genesis gives us the picture that God created this beautiful woman and this handsome man, and put them in this lovely garden on a warn sunny day, totally naked, and then he left them completely alone!

    You know, what is interesting to me is, I personally am charmed by the Genesis account. I just read it and I’m filled to overflowing with a realization of who I’m looking at here. Who is this person? For what he has now done is what a gracious man would do. He did not create them beautiful, naked, and tell them to reproduce, and then go hide in the bushes and watch! He granted them complete privacy, which has an interesting consequence. It means that God doesn’t know everything or see everything that ever happens. Not that he couldn’t, it is that he chooses not to. Why does he choose not to? Because God is gracious. Gracious is a character trait that responds to awkward situations with grace.

    There are those who believe that God is more like a computer than he is like a man. If you press the delete button, things disappear! That’s the way God is. Press the right button things go away, you press this button things appear. It’s all automatic. They picture a God who is remorseless, that whatever the program says has to happen, has to happen, and if anything happens contrary to that it’s because the program was written wrong or was written differently than what we thought it was. God is like a computer. Whatever happens, if you do wrong then you suffer, if you do right then things work for you. It’s all automatic. That’s what some people believe about God. They would never in a million years admit that. But emotionally, in their heart, in the way they think about God, pray to him, and react to him, they think he is more like a computer than he is like a man. “If you break the law, the law breaks you”. I wonder if you’ve ever heard that expression. David broke the law, and the law didn’t break him! What went wrong with our computer program? Something did.

    God is not a computer, God is a person. And the thing that began to dawn on me in the first two chapters of Genesis is, not only is God a person, but that God is personable. That he has characteristics and traits of a person, and that when you are with him he is gracious, he is kind, he is generous, he is open. One of the things that terrify us about God is that he is also just, and believes in justice, and insists on justice. But you know, mercy rejoices against justice. And it is the justice of God and of his world that he himself decides not to carry out, that constitutes grace, graciousness, and mercy. God is a kind person, he is gentle, he is compassionate, he is forgiving, he is gracious.

    Now, it is true that God can be very strict at times, but that strictness grows out of his sense of justice. And when you don’t have any justice, what you would have is capriciousness. And there is a world of difference, there’s a great gulf, between graciousness and capriciousness. Because graciousness can exist right along side of justice. The two of them go hand in hand, because there was justice: Adam and Eve were eventually shut out of the garden of Eden, they were denied access to the tree of life (Gen.3:24), because there was justice. But in fact, it was a choice they made; they chose the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

    Time passed, two sons are born. One of them is named Cain, the other one is named Abel. You know the story: they made their offerings to God, God accepted Abel’s offering, but he didn’t accept Cain’s offering. Cain was angry, and apparently he called his brother out into the field, and while they were out there, and they argued, he killed him. And God came looking for Abel, and he said to Cain, “Where’s your brother?” And Cain lied! He said, “I don’t know! Am I my brother’s keeper?!” And God said, “Your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground, I know what’s happened” (Gen.4:1-10).

    Now, justice would have called for the death of Cain. Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” For his own reasons, and God doesn’t even explain what his reason’s are, and without any kind of remorse on Cain’s part, God graciously did not kill him. It was purely a matter of grace that he was allowed to live. And, more than that, he sent him into exile, but he put a mark on Cain. The mark that was put upon Cain, however, was not a punishment, it was to preserve his life and to warn other men that they must not touch Cain (Gen.4:11-15), because they knew Cain’s punishment was death! Why’d he do that? He did that because God is gracious.

    More time passes, and things really deteriorate on the earth. The earth is filled with violence, and things got so bad that God finally decided he was sorry he ever started the project! Yea, he said, “I’m sorry I ever put man on the earth”. Now, I realize that this runs counter to the idea that God knows everything in advance. What can I tell you? God comes on the scene and says, “I’m sorry I ever started this mess.” He really was!

    You know, it seems better to me that if I want to know God, and I really want to know what he’s like, I had better take him as he is, and not as I want him to be. God was sorry, he wished he hadn’t done it. Remember, God is not a computer. This is not a program that was written long ago that we’re running out and all we are is a bunch of electrical currents running around through wires and running across switches in a computer that are either on or off. That is not what’s happening here.

    Genesis 6:5-6, “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” How would you say it if you don’t want to say, “I wish I hadn’t done it”? Genesis 6:7, “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

    God was sorry he even made them.

    You know, it really is foolish to go around apologizing for God, but that’s what a lot of us try to do when we try to find explanations of this passage of scripture that somehow will reconcile of what we think we know about God, with what he’s actually doing in here. Far smarter, folks, to just take what he’s doing in here as fact. And I’m sorry if it’s upsetting to some people to learn that God does not control everything. By his own choice, God does not control everything. That’s why you get into the trouble you get into!

    So, God decided to end the whole earth. Just wipe it out, start over again, maybe someplace else. And except for one thing, he would have. That one thing is in Genesis 6:8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” Now mind you, Noah was a good man, he was righteous in all of his generations. But if you think that that is the reason why Noah and his family survived the flood, you have it all wrong. That’s not what the Bible says. Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. He was a good man, but he was not that good.

    More time passes, and God strikes up a friendship with a man named Abraham. And this is really fascinating because this friendship is remarkably personal. Now it’s remarkable to you and I because we don’t think of God, normally, in the terms in which this passage of scripture, and the events that I’m about to talk about, are written. We really don’t think that way. We know God’s a person and we visualize him on a throne somewhere, but we still have a hard time thinking of him as a person who is personable with whom we can relate. We try, we want to, but we think of him as remote, distant, far off, high and lifted up, and untouchable, unapproachable, and all those adjectives I might put on him. I know you might tell me, “No, I don’t believe that”, but I’m talking about not what you say you believe, I’m talking about the way you feel about God. The way you respond to God. The way you react to the scriptures. The way you react to life in general tells me that most of us really don’t think of God in these terms. God, remember, is not a computer, he’s a person.

    So he comes to see Abraham one day. This occasion, we’re not really told in what form he came, only that he and Abraham are talking back and forth. And God wants Abraham to have a son, and he wants him to have it by Sarah. Now this is an interesting thing, because this is obviously a person, God is God, who has preferences, because Abraham has got a son by his wife’s handmaid named Ishmael. And as far as any particular requirement of God’s original promises, all this stuff could have gone straight forward with Ishmael, and all would be well. Right? There’s no real problem here. But that’s not what he wanted! Why did God do it this way? He did it this way because he wanted it this way! And for God, that’s enough! You know, if you’re God, you can have what you want. He wanted Abraham to have a son by Sarah.

    You know when you know someone, and you’re a friend with someone, you’re also a friend with his wife, and vice versa. Right? And we really care about one another’s couples too, and the love that often times develop on our friends, where we see each other, and squeal with delight, run and hug one another back and forth. When you’re dealing with couples, the love for a couple is a combined thing. And one of the terrible things that happens with divorce is this rupture of a couple that so many of us have learned to love as a couple, and now we’ve got to learn to relate to them separately.

    Well, God knew Abraham and Sarah, and he liked them. Now, I choose the phrase, “he liked them” because we think of God as, “Well, God loves all men”, and we speak that as a platitude. We need to understand he liked these people, cared about them. So he wanted them to have a son by Sarah. So God said, “Abraham, I’m going to see to it that Sarah has a son”. Abraham, then, laughed! Now, he didn’t just laugh, he fell on the ground laughing! With God there. And he is not laughing for joy, if you read the account very carefully you will see this is true (Gen.17:16-17). He is laughing because the idea of he and Sarah having a baby is ridiculous! It’s laughable. It’s funny. And he really doesn’t believe it. He hasn’t got his mind right, he can’t quite deal with it. Fell on the ground.

    Now, think about this for a moment. God is present, they’re talking, God says, “You and Sarah are going to have a son”, and he starts laughing, falls on the ground laughing, in front of God! Do you think God would be offended? Well, it’s fascinating, most of you people here would not be able to laugh in the presence of God no matter what he said. You just couldn’t do it! All of your strings would be so tight, if you were in the presence of God, God would probably look at you and say, “Son, you are not a fish, close your mouth!”

    What’s also interesting about this is that God did not smite Abraham with boils for laughing at him. Did he? What’d he do? You know, an ungracious God would have been insulted. When he made Abraham a promise, he’d say, “What are you laughing at me for? I made you a promise! I’m going to give you and this woman a son! Why are you laughing?! Get up!!!” But that would have been very ungracious, would it not? And God is not ungracious, he is gracious! Abraham falls on the ground laughing, and I think God looked down on him and said, “Well, just wait, you’ll see.” I think God takes a certain amount of pleasure in doing things the hard way. And this also tells me that God has a sense of humor, for he was able to see why Abraham would laugh, and not get offended by it, because God is gracious.

    More time passes, and God comes to call on Abraham on his way to Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, if you had been able to hide in the bushes near by, and watched this encounter, what you would’ve seen would have been very commonplace indeed. You would have seen three men walking down the road in the dust, Abraham had been sitting in the shade over here, Abraham spots them, jumps up, and you would’ve seen Abraham make arrangements to have water brought for them to wash their feet. You would have seen them wash their feet. You would have seen Abraham lay a meal before them. You would have seen them sit down and eat. I don’t know what could have been more ordinary in that world. Everything that happens in that account, there is not a hint of anything other than the fact here’s Abraham, here are three men who came to visit him about evening time. There’s just one thing. Two of these men were angels, as we call them, and the third was God himself (Gen.18:1-8).

    Now, does it seem out of the ordinary for you that God and two angels would sit down and wash their feet? That God and two angels would sit down and eat food that Abraham placed before them? Do their feet get dirty? Do they get hungry? Well, when they are in the flesh, which apparently they can be in the flesh when they choose to do so, they do get dirty and they do get hungry. And I also thought, “God created man and he created food, and he created food so that it would taste good”. And I can see God saying to the two angels that are on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah, “Let’s stop off and see Abraham, I’ve got something I want to tell him, and you can always get a good feed at Abraham’s place”.

    God, who created man and created food and created all things good in their time, is quite capable of appearing in the flesh and enjoying the things that he made possible. And like he said, “I know we can get a good feed at Abraham’s house”. And God, I suspect, enjoyed good food! Strange, isn’t it?

    But, as he left Abraham to go on to Sodom, God paused. Genesis 18:20-21, “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”

    My question is, “How come he didn’t already know if he is a computer that has sensors all around the world?!” How come he didn’t know? Why did God have to go down there himself to find out? Another example that shows that God doesn’t know everything is in Genesis 22, when God tested Abraham. He told Abraham to sacrifice his son because God wanted to find out something. After God tested Abraham and stopped him from slaying his son at the last moment, God said, “now I know that thou fearest God” (verse 12). The implication is that before that period of time, there was some degree of uncertainty as to what Abraham would do.

    All right, think about this for a moment. God knows everything, that’s our assumption. God is on his throne, wherever his throne is, and he is sitting up there, and in front of him, across the room, there is this huge bank of videos. And he’s got a clicker in his hand.

    Now, I want you to tell me, can you visualize God sitting on his throne, clicking across the television sets up there, and finally seeing one, and having it focus in close on what was going on in the back rooms of Sodom at any time? God is not a voyeur. He doesn’t peek into your bedroom, he doesn’t want to know what you do in secret or in private. He did not want to watch what was going on in Sodom, because folks, God is gracious, and he just doesn’t want to look at that kind of thing, or face that kind of thing.

    But he did receive the reports (Ezekiel 9:4,11) from his angels about Sodom and Gomorrah, and because he was a God of justice, it was not enough for him to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah on hearsay. He said, “I am going to go down and I’m going to see for myself”. Not only that, but God decided to go down and see for himself in the flesh. He was not going to stand off in the Spirit and observe this, he was going to smell it, and taste it, and experience it, to hear it with human ears, so that his judgment would be right. Because he’s Just, but he is also gracious. And a great leader will always face up to his problems and the things he has to deal with, and will deal with them personally, he will not deal with them from a distance.

    What a leader he is! It’s beyond my capacity to describe or imagine, but more and more I keep getting these little hints in the Bible to realize what a tremendous person this is. A real person who is willing to come down and get his feet dirty on the earth and have to wash them to get them clean, who will enjoy a good meal, who will stand and talk to Abraham about what he’s about to do and share this thoughts with him. And who is not willing to judge from afar off on hearsay of what somebody else told him, but was going to force himself to go down and confront Sodom and Gomorrah in the flesh.

    Well, the men turned their faces from thence and they went on towards Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah. And Abraham drew near, and said, “Will you also destroy the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people within the city? Will you also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are there?” And he goes on to say that, “That would be far from you to do like that” (Gen.18:16-25).

    Now isn’t that interesting? Abraham knew God, God was his friend and he was God’s friend, and he was able to say to God, “That’s not like you”. Why wasn’t it like God? Because God is gracious! He’s not the kind of person to do that. Abraham said, “I can’t believe that you would do that!” And God said, “No, if I find in Sodom fifty righteous people, then I will spare the place for that fifty righteous people”. And Abraham said, “Oh, don’t be mad at me, I want to speak one more time. Maybe there are ten righteous people there…” You know what he did, he worked himself all the way down, one step at a time, a little bargaining, giving and taking going on here. And God finally said, “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake”. (Gen.18:26-32).

    Why would God let Abraham talk him down like this? Why didn’t he just shut him up the first time out of his mouth, “Look, Abraham, don’t even worry about it. I’ll do what’s right, you go mind your own business and I’ll take care of mine”. Why didn’t God do that? Because God is gracious. And gracious people don’t do that, they listen, they hear you out, they want to know how you feel about it, they want to respond. And God wanted to do as much as he could what Abraham was asking.

    And there’s another thing about God that I think you should know. God does not like the idea of executing judgment. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Exe.18:32; 33:11). It is not something that he wants to do. He doesn’t like killing people, even when they have it coming, even when they richly deserve it, even when they ought to be dead and they ought to die in a horrible way, God does not like that! He doesn’t want to do it, and he will take whatever reason comes to hand that he can use, to be gracious, and to grant grace to someone who does not deserve it. There are so many examples of this in the Old Testament, we could be here all day reviewing them, but let me give you the definitive example of what it is I’m driving at.

    Still more time passes, and God finds himself a prophet. The man’s name is Jonah. And he says to Jonah, “I want you to go to that great city Nineveh, and I want you to walk into that city and proclaim ‘Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’” And Jonah was not having any of it. You all know about Jonah fleeing from the Lord, he got on the boat, went away, thrown overboard, swallowed by the whale, spit up on the shore, and finally he comes to Nineveh and does what he’s suppose to do. All the rest of that stuff is a lot of fun for the kids, but I’m talking to adults right now, and there’s something in this story I really want you to get…and it’s not the whale.

    He goes into the city and starts preaching, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” He doesn’t even tell them why. And I kind of think that, judging from the response of Nineveh, he didn’t even have to! Jonah 3:5-8, “So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God:” and listen to what he says, “yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands”.

    I don’t know if you remember it or not, but the primary reason God said he was going down to Sodom and Gomorrah was because of the violence that it was filled with (Gen.13:13), the reason he destroyed the earth in the time of Noah was because of the violence it was filled with (Gen.6:13). And here he is into Nineveh and the Ninevites knew that they needed to repent of their evil doings, and specifically turn and repent and turn away from his fierce anger, so that they don’t perish. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways, and God repented of the evil that he said he would do to them, and he did it not.

    Well, how can he do that? I mean, he had made a flat out prophesy, we have a promise of God! There is absolutely nothing equivocal about it. If you ever wanted to know where God said something he was going to do, you have it right there. And he didn’t do it! He felt sorry for those people, because they repented. They at least acted like they were sorry, showed signs of sorrow, and who knows whether it would last two days or five days or a week, but God said that’s enough, and he didn’t do it.

    But it displeased Jonah, exceedingly, and he was very angry! That’s what I want you to get. Because I sometimes feel, folks, that we’re just a whole lot closer to Jonah in our attitude than we are to God. Because Jonah was not gracious about this at all. It displeased him. And he prayed to the Lord and said, “I say this! Before I ever left, I knew that you were a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repent of evil. And you won’t even carry out what you say you will do!?” (Jonah 4:1-2).

    That’s what he said! He was furious, he was upset with God because God wouldn’t do what he said he would do. “Therefore take my life. It’s better for me to die than to live”. Jehovah was not the kind of God that Jonah wanted him to be. Simple as that. Jonah is the archetype of a man that wants his religion by the numbers. He didn’t want Nineveh to fall on the thirty-ninth day, and he didn’t want Nineveh to fall on the first-first day, he wanted Nineveh to fall on the fortieth day. And he wanted blood in the streets, that’s what he wanted. Why did he want that? Well, they probably deserved it! And for men like Jonah, exemptions to the rule drive them crazy! And in fact, Jonah is a little bit crazy here. A man to be angry with God? I don’t think that’s a sound mind.

    There’s a real irony in it, though. If God had been the kind of God that Jonah said he wanted, he would have taken a giant fly swatter and turn Jonah into so much road kill. If that was the kind of God that Jonah really wanted. So God said, “Are you doing well to be this angry? Should you really be this hot under the collar?”

    Jonah 4:5-6, “So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city. And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.”

    Now mind you, I said earlier that God has a sense of humor, there are a lot of ways to teach men things. God chose this.

    Then God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and as a result of the worm, the stupid plant died before the day was over. And it came to pass the next day, when the sun came up, God prepared a vehement east wind, and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he passed out! And when he came to he wished he was dead. “It is better for me to die than to live”. And God said to Jonah, “Are you doing the right thing here? Is it OK for you to be angry about this plant?” And he said, “Yes! Yes, I do well to be angry, even unto death! I want to die!” Then said the LORD, “You had had pity on the plant, for the which you did not labor, you didn’t build that thing, you didn’t make it grow, you didn’t even plant it! It came up in the night, and perished in the night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons (that’s one hundred twenty thousand) that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and a lot of sheep and goats and cows and so forth, that I kind of feel sorry for to?” (Jonah 4:7-11).

    “You could feel sorry for that plant, and you don’t think I have the right to feel sorry for a bunch of people in a town that don’t even know what’s going on around them?” Why did God do that? Because he’s gracious. Now are you beginning to see what I mean when I say that grace is an Old Testament doctrine? It is written throughout the Old Testament. You encounter grace again and again and again, and I don’t understand why! As we read the Old Testament, we focus in on all the things that Jonah wants, and forget all the things that God wants!

    Sure God is strict. Sure God is stern. Sure he is a God of Justice. Sure sometimes he comes down. Sure he incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah! But you know something? Lot and his family got out of Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you know why? It was not because they were righteous, it was not because they were obedient, it was because God is gracious. Because, in the end, Lot was standing there, fooling around, and the angel had to take him and his wife and his daughters by the hand, and lead them out of the city, to get them out of there (Gen.19:15-16)! Lot was saved because God is gracious (Gen.19:19). And in a way, he was saved because he was Abraham’s nephew, and God really cared about Abraham, and he really liked Abraham and his family, and didn’t want Abraham to feel bad because of the death of Lot.

    Does it strike you as odd at all that I talk about grace as a doctrine? Does it strike you as odd that we have a lot to say about doctrine? I mean, we got doctrine over this that we make up, and we argue doctrine and discuss doctrine, and go on and on about doctrine, and we divide Churches over doctrine, and we won’t speak to friends over doctrine, we have doctrine coming out of our ears! Why don’t we talk about grace?! If grace is a doctrine of God, why does it not play a huge role in the whole panoply of doctrine that we have out here? Of course, it’s kind of hard to divide over grace.

    There’s a funny thing about grace in the New Testament. In all four gospels, the complete accounts of all of Jesus’ life, ministry, and works, there is not a single instance in all the gospels where Jesus ever used the word “grace”. Strange, isn’t it? One might have thought, especially if grace was a doctrine, that somewhere along the line, Jesus would expound the doctrine of grace. Grace was not a doctrine that Jesus preached. Then what role did grace play in his ministry? Was it there?

    Luke 2:40, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.”

    Do you know what that means? That means the graciousness that you see all the way through the Old Testament, in all these examples of God who could have killed somebody and didn’t, a God who healed people, forgave people, let people off the hook, again and again, that graciousness of the Old Testament God was upon Jesus.

    John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.”

    Now we all know that Jesus was full of truth, don’t we? We’re all interested in the truth, we talk about truth this, truth that, and everything. Where’s grace? Jesus was full, first, of grace, and then of truth. Where’d the grace come from? It came from his Father. He came by it honestly.

    John 1:15-17, “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

    The law is a wonderful thing, but if you’re looking for a computer, or something to compare to a computer, the law might compare. But the law is not God. God is gracious. God is not like a computer, God is personal and kind and merciful and forgiving.

    If you really want to know what is wrong with the Church of God right now, the answer is simple enough. Great grace was upon Jesus Christ. Great grace is not upon us. When we condemn people because they celebrate the birth of Jesus on the wrong day, this is not grace. When we condemn people because they keep the Sabbath on the wrong day, this is not grace. When we are unforgiving of one another, this is not grace. When we take offense easily, when we make a brother an offender for a word, because he hasn’t got the words right, hasn’t got the formulas right, hasn’t got all these little technicalities right, when we make a brother an offender for that, this is not grace. When we make ourselves, our organization, our Church, better than others, that’s not grace. When we envy others, when we are suspicious, negative, looking for flaws, looking for failure, looking for weakness, sorry, this is not grace. And if, as you listen to me site this ungracious list, you are thinking of all the people you know who are like this list, this isn’t grace either. For I’m not talking to them, I’m basically talking to you.

    The truth is, we have not received in ourselves enough of God’s grace to be able to share it with others. If we had received it, we would be more gracious! Right? In order for us to be gracious with others, we have got to receive grace in ourselves.

    Do you remember the woman who came in to Jesus one day when he was reclining at food? And she walked up behind him and she was weeping, and she bent down and she was weeping so copiously that she was able to wash his feet with her tears. And she then took her long hair and wiped his feet with her hair (Luke 7:44). Don’t you realize that this woman who was there and had been forgiven much, really and truly loved much? You know, Jesus, we are told in the Bible, was full of God’s grace. Where? When? How? Well, when Jesus fed the five thousand (Mat.14:16-21), what character trait led him to do that? Well, it was grace. Can you say grace? Go ahead, say “Grace”.

    Now when John tried to get Jesus to stop a man who was successfully casting out demons in Jesus’ name, he’s going, “In the name of Jesus Christ, come out of him!” and the demon left, and John came to Jesus and said, “Let’s stop that man, he is not following after us!” (Mark 9:38-39), what character trait led Jesus to tell John to leave that man alone? It was grace. When his disciples wanted to call down fire on a village in Samaria because they refused to receive Jesus on his way to Jerusalem, they said, “Let’s call down fire from Heaven! Let’s wipe them out!” and Jesus said, “You don’t know what spirit you are of!” (Luke 9:51-56), what character trait led Jesus to refuse that option, and to correct the attitude of his disciples? It was grace.

    When he healed the Syrophenician’s woman’s daughter, you remember? He was in Tyre and she came to him, crying to him that he would heal her daughter. And he said, “I’m sorry, it’s not fit to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs”. And she said, “Well that’s the Truth, Lord, but dogs will eat the bread that falls from the master’s table.” What character trait led him to then say, “Woman, I have not found so much faith in all of Israel, you’re daughter will be healed” (Mat.15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30)? It was grace.

    When he refused to condemn this woman who washed his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, and the Pharisees said, “She’s a sinner, he ought to know better than that”, and he told the woman her sins were forgiven him (Luke 7:37-48), what character trait made it possible for Jesus to do that? It was grace. When he refused to condemn the woman who was taken in adultery, they brought her in there, they said, “She was caught in the very act of adultery!”, and he said, “Whoever’s without sin, let him cast the first stone”, they all left him alone, and he said to the woman, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?” and she said, “No man, Lord” (John 8:3-11), and Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more”, what character trait enabled him to do that? It was grace.

    You know, after Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus were very different men. Did you ever notice that? There’s something important that happened to them, and it’s something, that seems to me, that we rarely ever take notice of. Acts 4:33, “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.” And as I said, if there’s one thing that’s wrong with us today, it is that great grace is not with us.

    You know, when I look at these things and I think of what ought to be, when I think of what we could have done, and what we have done, and how much difficulty we are having in working together, I wonder about this example of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet. The parable he gave Simon on that day, he said, “There were two men. One of them came in and had this huge debt, and the master forgave him and wrote it off. Then a man came in with a small debt and the master wrote that off”, and Jesus asked, “Which of these two men will love him the most?” and Simon answered, “Well, him to whom he forgave the most. Why?”, and Jesus said, “He who has been forgiven much, loves much” (Like 7:40-47). It’s another way of saying that he who has received much grace, has much grace to give.

    Hebrews 12:28, “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace,”

    This is not just salt and pepper thrown in here, folks. The Word has been abused and lost. When he says, “Let us have grace”, he means something! He means that there should be something in us, something in our lives, that enables us to serve God sensibly with reverence and in Godly fear.

    You know, maybe, in the end analysis, grace is not a doctrine after all, because, to tell you the truth, I don’t know how we could ever have an argument about grace. May God help us to learn to be gracious with one another.

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-37ldzp’]

    This article was originally transcribed by www.icogsfg.org/rldtonge.html

  • The Objective of God’s Law

    The Objective of God’s Law

    We look at Psalm 119 to answer the following questions: Why was the law given? What is its purpose? What is the objective of the law? The law is intended to keep us from being reproached. It advises. It gives us liberty, provides good judgment, understanding and peace. It leads us to Jesus Christ. It endures forever, every jot and tittle. Unfortunately, it has often been used by men to control people. Grace is not the opposite of the law, it does not void the law; it gives exceptions to the law. The role of the Old Testament for the Christian. A discussion on legalism and salvation.

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-3s3rrq’]

    (Download MP3)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-21eec6′]

    Original sermon provided by http://www.borntowin.net

  • Did God “Do Away” With the Law in Romans?

    Did God “Do Away” With the Law in Romans?

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-246pd7′]

    Q and A with Dr. Michael Brown. How do you reconcile the seemingly contradictory messages from Romans 10:4 and Romans 3:31?

    Let’s look at the two passages, first Romans 3:31

    Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law!

    Paul makes it clear that what he’s teaching about faith does not nullify the law but rather establishes the law. When he’s speaks about the law here (in Romans 3:31), he’s referring to the Torah – the five books of Moses. Within the Torah is the teaching, beginning at Genesis 15:6, that we are justified by faith. We come into a right relationship with God first by trusting in Him, and it’s out of that that our works flow.

    So that’s Paul’s point there (in Romans 3:31). “What I’m teaching about faith”, he says, “it doesn’t nullify what the Torah teaches, in fact it establishes it (the torah)  because it puts it (the torah) in its proper place.”

    Also in that context, he explains that the role of the torah was not to make people righteous, but to show them their guilt before God, so that they would need to turn to God for mercy and forgiveness. So in that sense we’re properly understanding it (torah), thereby putting it in its proper place rather than nullifying it.

    What about Romans 10:4?

    For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

    The key thing is the word telos (τέλος). Aside from the fact that it’s ludicrous to think that Paul would contradict himself within the very same letter of careful teaching to the Romans, we have to ask and what is that word telos mean? Telos can mean ‘end’, and telos can also mean ‘goal’.

    We get the word telos in telescope and things like that. So what Paul is saying is not that Christ, the messiah, is the end of the law for everyone who believes, so once what you believe in him that terminates the law. No, rather the Messiah is the goal to which the torah is pointing so that everyone who believes in and can be justified.

    He’s really saying the same thing in both of those places. By rightly understanding the role of the Torah, and by rightly understanding what the Torah teaches us about faith (being that it establishes the Torah), we see that the Messiah is ultimately the goal to which the Torah is pointing us. Once we take telos and instead of translating it ‘end’ we translate it with ‘goal’, the objection disappears.

  • Matthew 5:17-20 – A Thorough Investigation

    Matthew 5:17-20 – A Thorough Investigation

    According to Yeshua the Messiah’s words here in Matthew 5:17, delivered within His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chs. 5-7, the Savior clearly states what His views are regarding the Torah of Moses. Along with Psalm 23 and the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), Matthew 5-7 includes the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:2-12) and the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), the four passages together composing the most frequently read and valued sections of the Bible for most evangelical Christians. Yeshua’s statements about the Torah are not at all hidden away in some obscure place. Jesus says very plainly that His purpose was not to “abolish” the Torah or Law of Moses, but to “fulfill” it. Gain a deeper understanding of Matthew 5:17-20 from a pro-torah perspective.

    [av_hr class=’default’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ av_uid=’av-3695s4′] (Download PDF)

  • Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua’s View of the Law

    Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua’s View of the Law

    What did Yeshua (Jesus Christ) have to say about God’s Commandments? Was it His intention to abolish the Law of Moses? Investigate Matthew 5:17-19.

    [av_hr class=’default’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ av_uid=’av-3wn3b5′]

    (Download PDF)

    [av_hr class=’default’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ av_uid=’av-33af6p’]

    Original article provided it its entirety from http://messianicpublications.com/tim-hegg/matthew-5-yeshuas-view-of-the-law/

  • The Messiah is Pro-Torah

    The Messiah is Pro-Torah

    What does Jesus (Yeshua) have to say about the Law?

    Think not that I have come to destroy (abolish) the Torah (“Law”), or the Nevi’im (“Prophets”): I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law, until all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

    The above statements of Yeshua are very troubling for many Christians, primarily because they contradict their theology. Many Christians divide the Scriptures into Dispensations. There was the Dispensation of Law in the “Old Testament,” and now we have the Dispensation of Grace in the “New Testament.” These words of Yeshua are in direct opposition to this theology. Therefore, many resort to twisting His words His words in verse 17 to mean just the opposite of what He said. I have heard it said, “Jesus kept the Law so I don’t have to.” Since Jesus fulfilled the Law, we can safely ignore it. However, after doing some verbal gymnastics with verse 17, there remain further problems with verse 18.

    Personally, I would prefer to accept Yeshua’s words for what He says. Malachi 3:6 tells us, “For I, YHWH, do not change. Therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” The Greeks had fickle gods, very moody, and changing with the weather. Unfortunately, the Greek mindset seeped heavily into Christianity. The God of the “Old Testament” was harsh and legalistic. In the New Testament, God transformed Himself into a soft, mushy God of love and grace. Actually, YHWH never changed. He was a God of both Law and Grace in the Foundational Scriptures (O.T.), and He remains a God of both Law and Grace in the Newer Testament. See Deuteronomy 13:1-5:

    If there arises among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, whereof he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them,” you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH your God is testing you, to know whether you love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after YHWH your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him, and cleave to Him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he has spoken to turn you away from YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust you out of the way which YHWH your God commanded you to walk in. So you shall put the evil away from the midst of you.

    In other words, if Yeshua had actually come to turn the people away from the mitzvot (commandments) of YHWH, then Yeshua would have been a false prophet, and the people of Israel would have been obligated to put Him to death. Eventually there were false accusations against Him that led to Him being crucified. However, none accused Him of abolishing the Torah at the time of His arrest.

    Yeshua spoke to Jewish audiences. In Scripture, He is called “Rabbi,” [1] even by some of His enemies. They recognized Him as a Jewish Teacher of Torah. If they had perceived Yeshua as being “anti-Torah,” He would never have been called “Rabbi” or “Rabboni.”

    When Yeshua referred to the “Law” in verse 17, He was referring to the Torah. Generally speaking, Torah refers to the first 5 books of the Bible, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. However, in Judaism, the term Torah is sometimes expanded to mean the entire Tanakh (O.T.), as well as Talmud and various Rabbinic writings. I believe that Yeshua used the term Torah to apply to only the first 5 books of the Bible, because He also mentioned the Prophets (Nevi’im). As might be expected, the Nevi’im include the so-called “major prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), as well as so-called minor prophets such as Joel, Amos, etc. Jewish Bibles also include the books of Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel, and 1st and 2nd Kings in the section called Nevi’im (Prophets). When Yeshua referred to the Law and the Prophets, He was referring to these two divisions of the Jewish Scriptures, exactly as was understood by the Jewish community. The Third Division of books in Jewish Bibles is called Ketuvim (The Writings), including books like Psalms and Job. Curiously, Daniel is considered part of the Ketuvim. I suspect that Daniel got bumped out of the Nevi’im because his prophecies about the times for the coming of the Messiah (Daniel 9:24-27) were a bit uncomfortable for the Rabbis, so Daniel got demoted to the Ketuvim.

    It baffles me. Yeshua said that He came “not to destroy (abolish) the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Then some Christians come along and believe that when Yeshua “fulfilled” the Torah, it was suddenly abolished! My NAS Study Bible would also take issue with such Christians. In their commentary they write, “Jesus fulfilled the Law in the sense that He gave it its full meaning. He emphasized its deep, underlying principles and total commitment to it rather than mere external acknowledgement and obedience.” Excellent! They got it exactly right! And just as in Yeshua’s day, there are some Jews who are fastidious in their external observance of the commandments (along with very legalistic Rabbinic interpretations of these commands), but who ignore the deeper meanings of God’s Laws.

    We also need further definition of the word “Torah.” When the Greeks came along, they translated the word Torah as Nomos, which is the Greek word for Law, which is how it is translated in most English Bibles. However, more accurately, Torah means Instruction or Teaching. Torah includes the mitzvot (laws), but Torah does not mean Law. Perhaps if this term were correctly translated, people might have a better appreciation for Torah. The Torah is foundational for everything that occurs afterwards in the Scriptures. No one can properly understand the Newer Testament without being grounded in the Torah and Nevi’im.

    Regarding Matthew 5:18-20, my NAS Study Bible says, “Jesus is not speaking against observing all the requirements of the Law, but against the hypocritical, Pharisaical legalism. Such legalism was not the keeping of all the details of the Law but the hollow sham of keeping laws externally, to gain merit before God, while breaking them inwardly. It was following the letter of the Law while ignoring its spirit. Jesus repudiates the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law and their view of righteousness by works.” Many times, I find Christian commentaries to be defective. However, in this case, I am very pleasantly surprised. They got it exactly right!

    David Bivin and Roy Blizzard [2] have an interesting interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18. “The meaning of Jesus’ words is clear. As long as the world lasts, he goes on to say in verse 18, the Law will last. Here Jesus is in complete agreement with the (Rabbinic) sages: ‘Everything has an end – heaven and earth have an end – except one thing which has no end. And what is that? The Law’ (Genesis Rabbah 10:1); ‘No letter will ever be abolished from the Law’ (Exodus Rabbah 6:1).” Bivin and Blizzard add:

    Destroy and fulfill are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a sage felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, ‘You are destroying the Law!’ Needless to say, in most cases his colleague strongly disagreed. What was ‘destroying the Law’ for one sage was ‘fulfilling the Law’ (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another.

    “What we see in Matthew 5:17ff. is a rabbinic discussion. Someone has accused Jesus of ‘destroying’ the Law. Of course, neither Jesus nor his accuser would ever think of literally destroying the Law. Furthermore, it would never enter the accuser’s mind to charge Jesus with intent to abolish part or all of the Mosaic Law. What is being called into question is Jesus’ system of interpretation, the way he interprets Scripture.

    “When accused, Jesus strongly denies that his method that his method of interpreting Scripture ‘destroys’ or weakens its meaning. He claims, on the contrary, to be more orthodox than his accuser…”

    “Never imagine for a moment,” Jesus says, “that I intend to abrogate the Law by misinterpreting it. My intent is not to weaken or negate the Law, but by properly interpreting God’s written Word, I aim to establish it, that is, to make it even more lasting.”

    “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law, until all be fulfilled.”[3] The “jot” is the yod (y), which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. The “tittle” could refer to the decorative strokes that Hebrew scribes often attach to various letters on the Torah scroll, firmly entrenched by tradition. The “tittle” could also mean the tiny strokes that distinguish one letter from another. For instance, the d and the r, or the j and the t, or the k and the b all look very similar, and could be easily confused, sometimes dramatically changing the meaning of some words. The tiny little strokes differentiating the various letters are often extremely important, as Yeshua emphasized. Neither jot nor tittle would ever be passed from the Torah until all is accomplished.”

    According to the Rabbis, when the Messiah comes, he will not only correctly interpret all the problematic verses of Scripture; he will also correctly interpret all the individual words of each verse. When Messiah comes, he will not only correctly interpret all the words; he will also correctly interpret all the individual letters of each word. In fact, when Messiah comes, he will also even interpret all the white spaces between the letters and words! This may sound a bit extreme. However, Yeshua certainly seems to reinforce the importance of each of the words of Torah.

    The first part of this verse begins, “For truly I say to you.” My Hebrew NT on this verse begins, “Kee amen omar anee lachem.” The term “amen” is often used at the end of a prayer. However, in this verse, “amen” is the term meaning “truly.” It has the same shoresh (root word) as the noun for “truth,” which is “emunah.” Yeshua goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Torah is eternal, even more so than the existence of heaven and earth. Yeshua taught and preached in both Aramaic and Hebrew, not in Greek. By using the term amen, he was emphasizing the truth of what he was saying.

    “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [4]

    Once a Christian asked me if he could eat pork and still get into Heaven. Knowing the disease potential of eating pork, I told him that yes, he could probably get to heaven even quicker! I do believe that some mitzvot are more important than others. I believe that the “Ten Commandments” written on tablets of stone by God’s own finger[5] may be more important than the dietary commandments which are not written on tablets of stone by God’s own finger. Those who break the least of the commandments, and so teach others shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Hey, you still squeak in, but at least you made it! That’s the good news!

    But what about those who break the more important commandments that are part of the “Big Ten,” the commandments written on those tablets of stone by God’s own finger? Yes, I know that most Christians believe in the Ten Commandments. Many have them on a wall in their homes. They don’t murder people, and most are fairly honest. They aren’t committing adultery, or most of the other items on list of Ten Commandments, at least not on a regular basis. But what about the Fourth Commandment: Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15? Of all the “Ten Commandments,” this is the one that God spends the most time with, with the most words and verses. I believe that YHWH considers this to be a pretty important commandment. Yes, I know that many Christians observe Sunday. However, Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sunday is the day that was originally set aside to honor the Sun god. Do we have the right to decide on our own which day to honor as the Sabbath? Shabbat (the Sabbath) was blessed and sanctified on the seventh day of the week of Creation, long before there were any Jews. Shabbat begins on Friday at sunset, and ends 24 hours later on Saturday at sunset. Matthew 7:21-23 indicates that many Christians are on a very slippery slope by deciding to ignore God’s instructions (Torah).

    “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20)

    The scribes and Pharisees had very high standards for righteousness. Do you believe you could reach such standards? I don’t believe you do, and I don’t believe I do. Ultimately, we need the shed blood of Messiah Yeshua, spilled on the cross at Golgotha. Yeshua paid the penalty for all of our sins. However, let us not turn this into “greasy grace,” as an excuse to sin. The NT definition of sin is the same as the OT definition of sin. It is found in 1 John 3:4: “Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the Law (Torah); for sin is the transgression of the Law (Torah).”

    Footnotes:

    (1) Mat. 23:7; 26:25; Mark 10:51; John 1:49: 6:25; 11:8; 20:16.
    (2) “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus,” www. JCStudies.com, Destiny Image, Shippensburg PA 17257-0310. © 1994, pp. 111-115.
    (3) Matthew 5:18
    (4) Matthew 5:19
    (5) Exodus 31:18

  • Galatians 3:23-24 How the Torah Leads Us to Christ

    Galatians 3:23-24 How the Torah Leads Us to Christ

    This entry has been duplicated in its entirety from tnnonline.net and reproduced from the paperback edition of The New Testament Validates Torah available for purchase here.

    (Download PDF)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-3kl2ap’]

    How can you say that the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians today, when it is quite clear that we are no longer under a tutor?

    Pastor: Galatians 3:24: The Law is our tutor to lead us to Christ.

    “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith.”

    The pastor we are examining is correct when he asserts, “The Law is our tutor to lead us to Christ,” citing Galatians 3:24 as evidence. The challenge with his assertion, though, is not in the need for the Torah’s instruction—and our widespread human inability to keep it—to reveal our sin and point us to the Messiah and the eternal redemption He provides (i.e., Romans 10:4, Grk.). The problem is that (1) when the good news is declared in much of Christianity today, people are only told about the love of God but are often never told about the judgment that is pronounced upon them as sinners, precisely because they are condemned as Torah-breakers (cf. Isaiah 24:5-6). And, (2) it has become far more commonplace in examination of Galatians to read Galatians 3:22- 25 from the perspective of it not speaking of individuals on the road to salvation, but instead of it speaking historically of the Jewish people keeping the Torah prior to the arrival of the Messiah— with the Torah only in temporary effect to be obeyed until His arrival. Scot McKnight summarizes the two interpretive options for Galatians  3:24:

    “The first takes it in an educative function: ‘the law was our pedagogue to lead us to Christ.’ This view is a common, traditional view, which sees the law as pointing out our sins so we will cry out for God’s grace in Christ. But besides the fact that Paul is not talking here about ‘individual experience’ but rather about ‘salvation history,’ he does not teach in Galatians that this is the purpose of the law…The second view is therefore to be preferred: ‘the law was our pedagogue until Christ.’ This view is not only the majority view today but is also contextually more compatible.”a

    McKnight is correct when he informs us that the majority view held among Galatians commentators is that Galatians 3:24 is to be read from the temporal perspective of the Torah being valid “until Christ came” (RSV/NRSV/ESV).b Only by reviewing Galatians 3:22-25 in total can we really evaluate whether an individual’s common experience in coming to faith in Yeshua or the condition of the Jewish people prior to the arrival of Yeshua is most textually compatible. This section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians begins with him informing his audience,

    “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Yeshua the Messiah [or, the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah]c might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed” (Galatians 3:22-23).

    The negative problem that sin has caused has affected “all men” (NASB) or “the whole world” (NIV), ta panta. People committing sin, and rejecting the Creator God and His ways, is by no means an exclusive First Century Jewish problem; it is a universal problem to all humanity (Romans 3:23). Bruce is correct to conclude, “As Gentiles and Jews are ‘confined under sin’ in v. 22, so Gentiles and Jews alike are ‘confined under law’ [in v. 23].”d All people are to be regarded as being “under sin” and “under law”. The verb to describe this condition is sugkleiō, “to confine to specific limits, confine, imprison” (BDAG),regarding how “we were confined under the law” (RSV) or “imprisoned and guarded under the law” (NRSV). All that Scripture (the Torah and the Prophets) can do for people is lay out God’s standard of holiness, righteousness, and proper conduct—yet because of the common mortal proclivity to disobey Him—the most that Scripture can really do is lock us up as prisoners.

    Scripture, to be sure, is not the problem; sin without a definite solution is the problem. The only thing to be experienced in a condition where one is “under sin” and “under law” is to be jailed, as it were, in condemnation and guilt. Thankfully, Yeshua the Messiah has come on the scene, and via His sacrifice offers everyone freedom from this! But, Yeshua’s work is for “those who believe”; if one does not recognize Him as Lord and Savior, then the redemption He provides is ineffectual and such people remain “under sin” and “under law.”

    At this point, though, many interpreters—in spite of how “the scripture has all men ‘imprisoned’ under the power of sin” (Galatians 3:22, Phillips New Testament)—opt for the continuing “we” statement made by Paul to regard only his fellow Jews, and not to all of his audience. So, when Paul says “before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed” (Galatians 3:23), such confinement was considered only a Jewish issue. The clause eis tēn mellousan pistin apokalupthēnai, “to the faith about to be revealed” (YLT), is thought to be taken with a temporal force, with the proposition eis (eivj) to be viewed “to denote a certain point or limit of time” (LS),f hence the common rendering “until faith should be revealed” (RSV). The faith in view is undoubtedly the belief or trust to be placed in Yeshua and His redemptive work; being “confined under the law” (RSV), though, is thought to only be a Jewish issue, with the Messiah’s arrival now abolishing Moses’ Teaching.

    In order to draw the conclusion that the preposition eis means “until,” a reader has to separate out “under sin” and “under law” as being two different ideas: “under sin” would mean the negative consequences of sin, but “under law” would mean Jews having to be Torah obedient (at least at one prior point in history). However, the symbiotic relationship that being “under sin” and “under law” have together—as being “under sin” results in being “under law” and subjected to the Torah’s penalties—is one which is constant and cannot be so easily separated as some interpreters think. Paul expresses in Romans 6:14-15, to a largely non-Jewish audience in Rome, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” Not only is the antithesis of being “under grace” being “under law,” but the “we” referred to would be all born again Believers who have recognized the Messiah Yeshua. All people are to be redeemed from being “under law.”

    Alternatively, if Galatians 3:23 is approached from an individualistic perspective, the statement “before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed,” regards the status of all people who were once condemned by God’s Torah as sinners, locked up in some kind of condemnation state before salvation. We should agree with Hegg, who says “it seems most natural to understand the phrase ‘before the faith came’g to mean ‘before personal faith comes to those God saves.’”h Only when people are able to recognize the significance of Yeshua’s faithfulness to die as a permanent sacrifice for human sin, this reality of faith having arrived to them, can they then be shown the great revelation of how faith in the Savior is to significantly transform them and allow them to enter into the Father’s destiny for their lives. This is something that the Apostle Paul did not want his Galatian audience to forget: what it took to get them to truly arrive at the significant faith in the Lord that they possess.

    While many would prefer to take the verb apokaluptō in Galatians 3:23 as regarding God’s plan in Yeshua “to be revealed” within salvation history, earlier in his letter Paul himself uses it to describe how “God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal [apokaluptō] His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles…” (Galatians 1:15-16a). To have the importance of faith actually revealed to a newly saved person, who has just been freed from the guilt incurred by sin and Torah-breaking, is entirely consistent with how Paul himself was redeemed. The initial salvation experience of faith in Yeshua is to be followed with a person being shown even more how significant the Messiah’s work is. It is more appropriate to render the clause eis tēn mellousan pistin apokalupthēnai as something like: “to the faith intendingi to be revealed” (my translation), that which is destined to manifest itself in the redeemed. Paul acknowledges the initial entry of Messiah faith in someone’s life, leading to a greater revelation of what faith in Him and who He is encompasses. The preposition eis can notably also mean “to express relation, to or towards” (LS).j Paul later specifies how the power of the good news is to lead one from faith to faith, meaning that the significant revelation of faith in Yeshua naturally gets deeper after one has been forgiven of sin and grows in Him:

    “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation [to salvation, YLT; eis sōtērian] to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith…” (Romans 1:16-17a).

    A proper view of Galatians 3:23 recognizes that: (1) saving faith is to manifest itself in the life of a Believer, (2) because of such faith one is freed from the imprisoning condemnation of sin and being “under law,” and (3) this results in being revealed a greater significance of faith as growth in Messiah begins.

    Having stated how those who are “under law,” locked up as condemned sinners, must have faith in Yeshua come into their lives—and consequently with the redeemed being shown the magnificent importance of such faith in Yeshua—Paul follows this by explaining a pre-Messiah function of the Torah:

    “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24, NASU).k

    A majority of today’s interpreters take Galatians 3:24 as being a temporal function for Paul’s own Jewish people. From this perspective “our” means “Jewish,” and “the law was our custodian until Christ came” (RSV) or “the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came” (NRSV). The Torah was the Jewish “imprisoner,” so to speak, eis Christon. Highly reflective of this view, and one who definitely believes that the Torah is not to be followed in the post-resurrection era, is Witherington, who concludes that “the Law as the pedagogue of God’s people lasted only until Christ came. Here eivj Cristo is surely to be taken in a temporal and not a telic sense.”l Such an interpretation of Galatians 3:24 could lead one to conclude that Paul is a turncoat Jew, and he is saying that with the arrival of the Messiah that his own people do not have to observe the burden of having to keep any of the Law of Moses; it was, after all, only “until Christ.”m

    Much of how we look at Galatians 3:24 is influenced by how we look at the role of the paidagōgos, which is invariably translated as “tutor” (NASU), “custodian” (RSV/CJB), “child-conductor” (YLT), “guardian” (HCSB), or “schoolmaster” (KJV), comparable to our English word “pedagogue.” Many examiners are in rightful agreement that “tutor” is not the best rendering for paidagōgos, as there is something specific to be understood from this term in antiquity. In Galatians 3:24, we actually see Paul using a classical Greek term to express a Jewish concept.n The paidagōgos was “Orig. ‘boy-leader’, the man, usu.[ally] a slave…whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth…to and from school and to superintend his conduct gener.; he was not a ‘teacher’…When the young man became of age, the pedagogue was no longer needed” (BDAG).o In a classical sense, the paidagōgos was a protector who was to guard young boys on their way to school until they reached a certain age. This “disciplinarian” (NRSV) or “guardian” (ESV) would try to instill within them a basic sense of who a responsible citizen was, until they arrived at a point when they were old enough to take care of themselves.

    Within much of the ancient period, the paidagōgos had a widescale reputation for strictness. Betz indicates, “The figure of the pedagogue is looked upon as a hard but necessary instrument in bringing a person to achieve and realize virtue.”p So here, the Torah is not that much more than a merciless taskmaster that has to beat proper behavior into someone. Witherington is more tempered, remarking that this point of view “is much too one-sided. There were both bad and good pedagogues and the latter were not rarer exceptions to a rule.”q Paul is certainly not expecting his Galatian audience to apply all of the possible negative traits of a classical paidagōgos into his usage in Galatians 3:24.

    While strict in terms of discipline, and while various interpreters would oppose this conclusion, the paidagōgos did have an important educational function. As Plato would describe it, “Our sharp-eyed and efficient supervisor of the education of the young must redirect their natural development along the right lines, by always setting them on the paths of goodness as embodied in the legal code” (Laws 7.809).r Dunn argues in favor of the paidagōgos, again while being strict, having a “responsibility to instruct in good manners, and to discipline and correct the youth when necessary.”s TDNT further remarks that the Torah “is a paedagōgós while we are minors. During our minority we are under it and virtually in the position of slaves. With faith, however, we achieve adult sonship and a new immediacy to the Father which is far better than dependence on even the best ‘pedagogue.’…It is a taskmaster with an educational role.”t

    The related verb to paidagōgos is paideuō, which can mean both “to provide instruction for informed and responsible living, educate” and “to assist in the development of a person’s ability to make appropriate choices, practice discipline” (BDAG).u Paideuō is often employed in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew yasar, meaning, “chastise, discipline, rebuke,” and “teach, train” (CHALOT).v It appears in Proverbs 29:19: “A slave will not be instructed [yasar] by words alone; for though he understands, there will be no response,” or “A stubborn servant will not be reproved [paideuō] by words: for even if he understands, still he will not obey” (LXE). Yet, even while the verb paideuō can relate to negative discipline or chastisement, it is used in the Apocrypha to represent the education of someone in the Tanach Scriptures:

    • “Therefore set your desire on my words; long for them, and you will be instructed [paideuō]…Therefore be instructed [paideuō] by my words, and you will profit” (Wisdom 6:11, 25).
    • “If you are willing, my son, you will be taught [paideuō], and if you apply yourself you will become clever” (Sirach 6:32).

    Another related term to paidagōgos is paideia, regarding “the state of being brought up properly, training” (BDAG).w This notably appears in 2 Timothy 3:16, where Paul says “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training [paideia] in righteousness.” Also to be considered could be 4 Maccabees 1:17: “[There] is education [paideia] in the lawx, by which we learn divine matters reverently and human affairs to our advantage.”

    Whether Galatians 3:24 should be understood in the context of the clause eis Christon meaning “to lead us to Christ” (NIV) or “until Christ came” (TNIV) is determined by the value judgment of a reader concluding whether or not the figure of the paidagōgos or pedagogue had any kind of educational role. No one can deny that the paidagōgos was a strict disciplinarian. While Witherington argues that “it was not unusual for the pedagogue to chide or even beat a child on occasion to achieve the desired form of behavior,” even he has to recognize “The pedgagogue did have a limited educational role…”y All are agreed that the Torah function as a pedagogue regards the issuance of condemnation to Torah-breakers, but does this condemnation stir up within condemned persons the need for them to cry out to the Messiah—or did the Torah only have a limited function in protecting the Jewish people until the Messiah’s arrival? The combined disciplinarian-educator can actually be seen when we compare Galatians 3:24 to 2 Timothy 3:14-16:

    Therefore the Law has become our tutorto Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

    You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:14-16).

    The Apostle Paul lauded Timothy for how he was raised by his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5) in the Tanach Scriptures, which are Holy Texts to be employed for paideian tēn en dikaiosunē, “training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Torah and Tanach are going to train people in ways of righteousness, whether they are redeemed or unredeemed, and for the latter such training will undeniably involve chastisement. The Torah, Prophets, and Writings are going to always reveal a person’s innate need for a Divine Redeemer—One whom the Father has provided in His Son Yeshua (Jesus). Paul quite keenly says of the Tanach Scriptures, that they are “able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Messiah Yeshua” (my translation), eis sōtērian dia pisteōs tēs en Christō Iēsou. In 2 Timothy 3:15, the preposition eis involves Timothy’s training in the Tanach leading to his salvation.

    There is no reason at all why the clause eis Christon cannot be viewed as “to Christ.” It is true that a version like the NASU has added some words in italics with “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ” and the NKJV has the similar “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ.” These words are justifiably added to recognize the appropriate preparatory role of the pedagogue: eis Christon, “to Christ”—which is comparable to eis sōtērian, “to salvation.” In Galatians 3:24 the perfect verb gegonen (ge,gonen) is used, indicating that the role of the Torah as pedagogue, while something done in the past, still has an ongoing effect for born again Believers. The Torah having once served a pedagogue for the redeemed—a strict disciplinarian for those who have now arrived at faith in Yeshua—does not allow for people to dispense with its instructions. When Matthew 1:21 informs Bible readers, “Now all this took place to fulfill [gegonen] what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet,” are we expected to throw away and ignore the Messianic prophecies now that they have been fulfilled via the Incarnation of Yeshua? Or are we to understand them in a new light?

    There is every reason to recognize the validity of the Torah serving as the pedagogue leading individuals in need of salvation to the Messiah. Yet, even if we were to view Galatians 3:24 from the perspective of the Torah serving as a strict disciplinarian “until Christ,” meaning “until Christ came into our lives,” this should not automatically mean that God’s Law gets cast aside as unimportant. The function of the Torah as a pedagogue is over for those who recognize the Messiah, whether you render the clause eis Christon as “until Christ” or “to Christ.” Stott’s observations are well taken:

    “[T]he oppressive work of the law was temporary, [but]…it was ultimately intended not to hurt but to bless. Its purpose was to shut us up in prison until Christ should set us free, or to put us under tutors until Christ should make us sons….Only Christ can deliver us from the prison to which the curse of the law has brought us, because He was made a curse for us. Only Christ can deliver us from the law’s harsh discipline, because He makes us sons who obey from love for their Father and are no longer naughty children needing tutors to punish them.”z

    While some might want to argue against the view that the Torah is to serve as an individual’s pedagogue—concluding that the “we” Paul is speaking of in Galatians 3:24 is just “we Jews”—the Torah did indeed play a role in the non-Jewish Galatians’ own salvation experience. Paul’s visit to Southern Galatia in Acts chs. 13-14 reveals that he certainly taught about Yeshua from the Torah and Prophets to more than just Jews, observing that He provided a forgiveness from sins and freedom that the Torah could not provide (Acts 13:38-39, 43).

    In various sectors of today’s Messianic movement, Galatians 3:24 has been viewed from the perspective of a young man or young woman being prepared for bar/bat mitzvah.aa In Judaism, boys and girls are taught the commandments of the Torah from their infancy. The commandments are rigorously instilled in them so that by the time they reach puberty, usually by the age of 12 or 13, one who goes through his bar/bat mitzvah recognizes that he is accountable for being a member of the Jewish community. While it is now traditional to hold festivities and parties for bar/bat mitzvah, the First Century historian Josephus recorded, “when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law” (Life 1.9).bb A major role in a bar/bat mitzvah ceremony (or even in a Protestant Christian denomination confirming a youth as a church member) is so that young people arrive at the point of being aware of their responsibilities before God, and that they have an understanding of the Scriptures.

    The practice of preparing a youth for bar/bat mitzvah is to instill in the boy or girl the understanding that he or she is accountable for living up to the Torah’s standards. The Torah up to this point serves as the person’s tutor or schoolmaster, and hopefully when the youth gets up to the bema to read from the Torah scroll, he or she has an understanding that this is very serious in the eyes of the God of Israel. In a Messianic context, we surely hope that a young person undergoing bar/bat mitzvah has truly come to that moment where he or she realizes that the Torah is not enough, and that it is the Lord Yeshua to which its instructions inevitably point.

    In the view of Galatians 3:24, God’s Law as pedagogue is to rigorously instill within us a sense of His holiness and righteousness, but our innate inability to ultimately keep its commandments perfectly should lead us to faith in the Messiah. When salvation from our sin comes, the key principles of God’s Torah are to certainly remain instilled with us. As we then grow and mature in such salvation, with the New Covenant promise of the Torah being supernaturally transcribed on our hearts now in play (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27), we can fufill the Torah in emulation of Messiah Yeshua (Matthew 5:17-19), surely demonstrating it in action via good works of mercy and kindness toward others.

    Pastor: Galatians 3:25: Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

    “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

    While the pastor has chosen to look at the role of the Torah as preparatory for the Messiah, “to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24, NASU), which is quite admirable given the scope of positions against it—he draws the further conclusion from Galatians 3:25, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Much of how we approach the meaning of hupo paidagōgon (u`po. paidagwgo,n) or “under a tutor” regards how we conclude what a paidagōgos actually is. The thought of many is that this means no longer being “under the supervision of the law” (NIV), and that God’s people should not be concerned about keeping God’s Law. Is this a valid approach to Galatians 3:25?

    In the previous remarks on Galatians 3:24, we have described how the ancient classical figure of the paidagōgos is like a strict disciplinarian. While having an educational role for those on the road to saving faith, the paidagōgos is still going to condemn a person more often than not. Paul’s word “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a pedagogue” (Galatians 3:25, my translation), should be understood from the perspective that after a person has arrived at salvation in the Messiah Yeshua, the Torah’s function as a paidagōgos is over. Bruce ably comments, “with the coming of faith believers have come of age and no longer require to be under the control of a slave-attendant: u`po. paidagwgo,n has the same sense as u`po. no,mon in v. 23.”cc A fulfillment of the Torah in acts of love, focused around the fruit of the Spirit, is clearly to begin (Galatians 5:14-6:2). For the redeemed, the function of God’s Torah only condemning people with guilt because of their disobedience has ended.

    In what context are born again Believers no longer “under a tutor”? If we are in the faith and have reached a point of spiritual maturity where we know what the Torah tells us is right and wrong, and we have repented of our sins and been spiritually regenerated, we have no need for the Torah to serve as a paidagōgos. We have no need for this kind of rigorous training, because if we have experienced the new birth we naturally want to obey our Heavenly Father through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will convict us and remind us as we study the Scriptures, as we pray, and as we sincerely seek the Lord about what we should and should not be doing. For those truly saved and earnestly seeking the Lord, the Torah no longer serves as a schoolmaster, because we should be naturally following God’s commandments as an outward part of our walk of faith.

    The Jewish philosopher Philo also expressed how “there is an undying law set up and established in the nature of the universe…that instruction is a salutary and saving thing, but that ignorance is the cause of disease and destruction” (On Drunkenness 141).dd The goal of any kind of instruction given by God is to be salvation, especially as human beings understand their limitations in light of His eternal holiness and perfection. And while it is most imperative for our mortal inability to fully obey the Lord to drive us to the cross of Yeshua in confession and repentance, instruction in sanctification is to truly follow being saved as the Holy Spirit takes up residence within us and transforms us to be more like Him. Some of this involves further discipline (1 Corinthians 11:32; Hebrews 12:6; cf. Proverbs 3:12) when we err, but it also involves opportunities for God’s people to simply demonstrate His good character to others (1 Thessalonians 2:10).

    In order for the Law to have actually once functioned as an individual’s tutor or pedagogue: people have to know it. Where in mainstream Christianity today are the commandments of the Torah really taught to even lead people to faith? Are God’s commandments being taught in Sunday school so that the youth can know that they are sinners and that they need a Redeemer? Surely if they were in greater numbers than they currently are, some of the moral dilemmas that the contemporary Church faces would not be present. Unfortunately, the “salvation history” reading of Galatians 3:22-25 has done much of the current generation a serious disservice: Christian people are really not being instructed in the Law of Moses. The role that the Torah plays, or has played, in seeing Yeshua arrive onto the scene of history and into the lives of the redeemed—is not that appreciated. Hegg offers us some key observations:

    “[I]n the metaphor Paul uses, when one has arrived at the teacher, one does not therefore despise the pedagogue who lead him there! If anything, one is more appreciative of the custodian because he has performed his duties faithfully. In the same way, when a sinner comes to realize that he is unable to remedy himself of his guilt, and when the Torah leads the sinner to Yeshua, the only remedy for sin, he is forever grateful for the role of the Torah in leading to Yeshua. Far from considering the Torah to have been worthless, he recognizes the strategic role it has played.”ee

    Indeed, as redeemed Believers are no longer “under a tutor,” we should nonetheless be most grateful that the Torah-function as pedagogue has led us to the Divine Savior, Yeshua the Messiah. Following our salvation, we should demonstrate the appropriate respect, honor, and obedience that is due Moses’ Teaching.ff

     

    Endnotes:

    a Scot McKnight, NIV Application Commentary: Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 183.

    b Including, but not limited to: Bruce, Galatians, 183; Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, Vol. 41 (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1990), pp 148-149; Hansen, pp 107-109; Witherington, Galatians, pp 268-269; Hays, in NIB, 11:269-270.

    c Grk. ek pisteōs Iēsou Christou. 

    d Bruce, Galatians, 182.

    e BDAG, 952.

    f LS, 231.

    g Grk. Pro tou de elthein tēn pistin; “before the coming of the faith” (YLT), something akin to the “arrival” of Messiah faith in someone’s life.

    h Hegg, Galatians, 128.

    i Grk. mellousan.

    I have chosen to render the verb mellō here along the lines of “to be inevitable, be destined, inevitable,” which for Galatians 3:23 is specifically noted for “w. aor. inf. avpokalufqh/nai that is destined (acc. to God’s will) to be revealed” (BDAG, 628).

    j LS, 231.

    k New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970), NT p 241 has “the law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come,” but notes the alternate rendering “Or a kind of tutor to conduct us to Christ.”

    l Witherington, Galatians, 269.

    m Longenecker, Galatians, 149 does notably speak against this, claiming that “One may, of course, as a Jew continue to live a Jewish nomistic lifestyle for cultural, national, or pragmatic reasons. To be a Jewish believer in Jesus did not mean turning one’s back on one’s own culture or nation,” although he unfortunately further argues that things like circumcision or the dietary laws have nothing to do with “the life of faith.”

    n The term “pedagogue” does appear as a borrowed term in some Jewish literature (Ibid., pp 146-148).

    o BDAG, 748.

    p Betz, 177.

    q Witherington, Galatians, 263.

    r Plato: The Laws, trans. Trevor J. Saunders (London: Penguin Books, 1970), 253.

    s Dunn, Galatians, pp 198-199.

    t G. Bertram, “education, instruction,” in TDNT, 757.

    u BDAG, 749.

    v CHALOT, 137.

    w BDAG, 749.

    x Grk. estin hē tou nomou paideia.

    y Witherington, Galatians, 265.

    z John R.W. Stott, The Message of Galatians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 98.

    aa Cf. Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz, Torah Rediscovered (Lakewood, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 1996), pp 23-24.

    bb The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 1. 

    cc Bruce, Galatians, 183.

    dd The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 219; cf. Noah’s Work As a Planter 144.

    ee Hegg, Galatians, 130.

    ff For a further discussion of these and the relevant surrounding passages, consult the author’s article “The Message of Galatians” and his commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-3093zl’]

    Original article provided it its entirety by TNN Online.

  • What do Paul’s Letters Really Say?

    What do Paul’s Letters Really Say?

    Marcion was an early Christian bishop who taught that the entire Old Testament should be rejected, and that Paul was the only apostle that could be trusted. Is the ghost of Marcion still at large in the Church today?

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-3zitv3′]

    (Download PDF)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-2kjp1r’]

    Original article provided it its entirety by Messianic Publications

  • Investigating Galatians: A four part series

    Investigating Galatians: A four part series

    This four-part series provides an excellent in-depth investigation into the book of Galatians from a pro-torah perspective. Several questions are addressed to include: Was the apostle Paul against the Law? What was the point of God’s Law? Is there to be a different law for Jew and Gentile?

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-47jjde’]

    Part 1:

    (Download MP3)]

    Part 2:

    (Download MP3)

    Part 3:

    (Download MP3)

    Part 4:

    (Download MP3)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-2u57b6′]

    Original sermon provided by http://www.borntowin.net

  • Ephesians 2:14-15: What has been abolished?

    Ephesians 2:14-15: What has been abolished?

    (Download PDF)

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-3tlkdn’]

    How can you say that the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians today, when it is quite clear that the Law of commandments has been abolished?

     Pastor: Ephesians 2:14-15: The Law was abolished in the flesh of Christ.

    “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.”

    Ephesians 2:14-15 are challenging verses for many within the Messianic movement, with few being able to even respond to the pastor’s remark “The Law was abolished in the flesh of Christ.” If in Ephesians 2:14-15 the Apostle Paul is saying that Yeshua the Messiah abolished the Torah of Moses, then this would be in flat contradiction of the Savior’s own words regarding fulfillment of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-19)—yet no one can deny the significance of how in Him a “one new humanity” (NRSV/CJB/TNIV) composed of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers must emerge, a clear testament of His grand salvation for all people. We need to look at Ephesians 2:14- 15 a bit more closely, and keep in mind what kind of law is being specifically addressed here. Is God’s Torah actually a cause of enmity or hostility for people, or might something else be in mind?

    Immediately previous in Ephesians 2:11-13, Paul asserts how those of his largely non- Jewish audience in Asia Minora had once been separate from the One True God, and consequently also separate from Israel. This, however, is a status which has been reversed with the arrival of the Messiah Yeshua into their lives:

    “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Yeshua you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah” (Ephesians 2:11-13).

    Speaking of the non-Jewish Believers, Paul says that prior to their faith in Yeshua, they had once been “excluded” (NASU) or “alienated” (RSV) from the Commonwealth of Israel (tēs politeias tou Israēl). They had been without any hope of salvation. Yet, being found in Yeshua they have been “brought near” (cf. Deuteronomy 4:7; Isaiah 56:3; Psalm 148:14) and into Israel as a direct result of salvation. They possess a citizenship which their trespasses and sins once barred them from having, and as Paul further explains in Ephesians 3:6, “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel.” All people are to be reckoned as a part of the same community of Israel in Israel’s Messiah. This is significant to the point that the reconciliation of once hostile Jewish and non-Jewish people to one another, composing the Body of Messiah, is to serve as a sign of the further redemption to come to the cosmos (Ephesians 3:10).

    Paul’s attestation in Ephesians 2:14 is not too difficult to comprehend: “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.” There was something that specifically represented the division between the Jewish people and the nations in the First Century, which had to be broken down, in a manner of speaking. Certainly, there is no shortage of quotations to be seen in ancient Jewish literature, as well as various Greek and Roman works, detailing the great amount of ungodly prejudice and negativity present—which the Apostles and early Believers all had to work against in sharing the good news of Yeshua to all who would hear. What needed to be torn down is labeled by Paul to be “the barrier of the dividing wall,” to mesotoichon. Only when such a wall is torn down, in the hearts of people, can the true shalom or all-encompassing peace of the Lord be manifest.b What this dividing wall is specifically supposed to be is a cause of much dispute among interpreters, especially given the following word:

    “[B]y abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15a).

    By His sacrifice on the tree, Yeshua the Messiah has specifically abolished tēn echthran or “the hostility” (NRSV). Christopher J.H. Wright reminds us what the actual issue in view is: “to remove the barrier of enmity and alienation between Jew and Gentile, and by implication all forms of enmity and alienation…The cross is the place of reconciliation, to God and one another.”c In rendering this negative condition inoperative, many readers automatically conclude that the regulations of the Law of Moses are what stood in the way of the Jewish people and the nations, causing great problems, and so the Torah needed to be abolished. Before we jump to the immediate conclusion that all Christian interpreters everywhere have viewed Ephesians 2:15a speaking of all of the Torah, there are in fact several distinct options put forward:

    • This “law” is the totality of the Torah.
    • This “law” composes the ceremonial commandments of the Torah, particularly in relation to the regulations of clean and unclean. Or, it composes the death penalty for high crimes in the Torah (cf. Colossians 2:14). This “law” does not compose the moral or ethical commandments of the Torah.
    • This “law” is a reference to what caused the dividing wall seen in the Jerusalem Temple (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 417; Wars of the Jews 194), derived from various inappropriate interpretations of Torah commandments. This would constitute “law,” but not law of Mosaic origin (cf. Mark 7:6-7).

    While the first view is one which looks disfavorably upon the Torah, the second and third views tend to look favorably upon the Torah to an extent.

    The second view is generally adhered to among Christian Old Testament theologians, who still have a highly favorable view of the Torah’s moral and ethical commandments, and the Ten Commandments especially, which are to always be followed by God’s people in any generation. In his book The Message of the Cross, Derek Tidball specifies that the so-called “moral law” of God could not be abolished or intended here, per the words of the Messiah Himself:

    “The ‘barrier’ or ‘dividing wall’ might allude to the wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the inner courts of the temple, which were to be entered only by Jews. It prevented Gentiles from going further and warned them that they took their lives into their own hands if they did….Christ did not abolish the moral law by rendering it no longer relevant. If Paul were claiming that, he would be contradicting Christ’s own teaching. But on the cross Christ did nullify the condemnation this law brings us under when we break it, by removing the penalty of our disobedience from us and bearing it himself. He nullified the ceremonial law, abolishing its regulations through fulfilling it in himself, thus making them an anachronism. Because he did so, these laws can no longer exercise their divisive powers.”d

    There are many interpreters who continue to hold to the view that only the “ceremonial law” was rendered inoperative via Yeshua’s sacrifice. Kaiser is one who holds to this view, and he does validly note, “Had the law in its entirety been intended in this ‘abolishment,’ Ephesians 6:2 would be somewhat of an embarrassment: ‘Honor your father and mother.’”e   It would be absolutely ridiculous for Paul to consider that the Torah as a whole has been abolished, especially if he later must appeal to its instruction in the same letter! Christian interpreters who have a high view of the Torah do rightly point out that Ephesians 2:15 has to be balanced in view of Matthew 5:17 and Romans 3:31. They are also keen to point out that removing the Tanach or Old Testament from a modern Christian’s regimen of discipleship has had disastrous moral consequences, being right to assert that things like the Ten Commandments were to keep Ancient Israel rightfully separated from the pagan nations around them.

    The third view concurs with the imagery of the Temple of God, “a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:21), that Paul considers the Body of Messiah to be, with the Jerusalem Temple made as an obvious point of comparison. And, there was definitely a barricade that was present in the Jerusalem Temple which separated the Court of the Gentiles from the inner court, the latter only being accessible to Jews and proselytes. The First Century historian Josephus testified to this:

    “Thus was the first enclosure. In the midst of which, and not far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by a few steps; this was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner to go in, under pain of death” (Antiquities of the Jews 15.417).

    “[T]here was a partition made of stone all round, whose height was three cubits: its construction was very elegant; upon it stood pillars at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should go within that sanctuary’” (Wars of the Jews 5.194).g

    Here, we see that this dividing wall which was erected between the Court of the Gentiles and the inner court included signs that any unauthorized person passing through would be executed, presumably on sight. S. Westerholm explains, “at regular intervals were placed slabs with inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbidding Gentiles, on pain of death, to go further…It has often been suggested that Eph. 2:14 (the ‘dividing wall of hostility’) contains an allusion to this barrier” (ISBE).h This was a barrier that separated Jews from both non-Jews and women. Francis Foulkes attests, “Christ had now broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, of which that dividing wall in the temple was a symbol.”i Bruce further observes,

    “This was indeed a material barrier keeping Jews and Gentiles apart…Whatever the readers may or may not have recognized…it should be remembered that the temple barrier in Jerusalem played an important part in the chain of events which led to Paul’s [imprisonment]…That literal ‘middle wall of partition,’ the outward and visible sign of the ancient cleavage between Jew and Gentile, could have come very readily to mind in this situation.”j

    If the dividing wall in the Jerusalem Temple is what Paul has in mind as being torn down in the Messiah, it certainly begs the question whether the erection of such a wall was God’s original intention. Some say that it was a natural application of the Torah,k keeping Israel separated from the nations. Yet, does the erection of to mesotoichon in Ephesians 2:14-15 fit well with the missional imperatives upon God’s people seen in the Tanach (Old Testament)? When the Lord called Israel as a nation of priests unto Him (Exodus 19:6)—intermediaries between Him and the world—would erecting barriers to keep outsiders out be a part of that call? It was, after all, to be Israel’s obedience to God’s Torah that would make them wise in the eyes of the other nations (Deuteronomy 4:6), and by seeing Israel blessed then other nations would flock to inquireabout Him!

    At the dedication of the First Temple, the prayer of King Solomon is that the nations would hear of the fame of Israel’s God, and stream toward the Temple and come to know Him:

    “Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name’s sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name” (1 Kings 8:41-43).

    The eschatological vision of the Temple is that all nations would stream toward it, joining themselves to the Lord and serving Him:

    “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath and holds fast My covenant; even those I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:6-7).l

    Did the Torah truly bring about a hostility between Paul’s Jewish people and the nations? Did the construction of the Temple purposefully create a division between Israel and the nations? You will note that there is no Torah commandment regarding the construction of a dividing wall in God’s sanctuary, nor would such an ideology be supported anywhere in the Tanach. The purpose of constructing the Temple was l’ma’an yeid’un kol-amei ha’eretz et-shemkha l’yir’ah otkha, “Thus all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You” (1 Kings 8:43, NJPS). The Temple was built to be a place for God’s glory to be manifest, and for the fame of the Creator to reach beyond the people of Israel! As Isaiah says, it was to be beit-tefilah yiqarei l’kol-ha’amim, “[a] house of prayer called for all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:6, my translation).

    The debate over the dividing wall to be torn down in Yeshua, ultimately regards how one chooses to view the clause:

    ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin

    This clause is invariably rendered as something along the lines of “the law with its commandments and regulations” (NIV), “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (ESV), or “the law with its rules and regulations” (REB).m Ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin literally “the law of commandments in decrees” (Witherington),n with the NASU rendering of “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,” being probably the most literal that you will be able to find among mainline versions.

    The singular entolē means “a mandate or ordinance, command,” and can be used “of commandments of OT law” (BDAG),o even though this is not a strict necessity. In a secular sense entolē was used “as the command of a king or official” or “as the instruction of a teacher” (TDNT).p

    What dogma pertains to is slightly more complex, as it can be both “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed” and “something that is taught as an established tenet or statement of belief, doctrine, dogma” (BDAG).q Dogma is not used at all in the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuchal books to describe any category of Torah commandments. It principally appears in the Book of Daniel to describe the decrees of the Babylonians and the Persians (Daniel 2:13; 3:10, 12; 4:6; 6:9ff, 13f, 16, 27; cf. Acts 17:7), as it can certainly be referring to “an imperial declaration” (BDAG).r Wayne E. Ward further indicates, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology:

    “[T]he word designates a tenet of doctrine authoritatively pronounced. In the LXX dogma appears in Esth. 3:9; Dan. 2:13 and 6:8 for a degree issued by the king. In Luke 2:1 it is the decree of Caesar Augustus, in Acts 16:4 the decrees laid down by the apostles, in Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 the judgments of the law against sinners, which Jesus triumphed over in the cross.”s

    In the Apocrypha an apostate Jew is said to leave all of tōn patriōn dogmatōn or “the ancestral traditions” (3 Maccabees 1:3), and a brother who is martyred testifies to have been raised on dogmasin or various “teachings” (4 Maccabees 10:2), neither of which has to be the Torah/Pentateuch proper. Given these examples, you should see some interpretational possibilities open to us as Messianic Believers, especially per Yeshua’s word that He came to not abolish the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:17).

    I would propose that a more correct translation of Ephesians 2:15b, ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin, especially per the context of the dogmas of the dividing wall, would be: “the religious Law of commandments in dogmas.”t Nomos is rendered as “law,” but clarified with an italic “religious,” as it would be more akin to man-made religious law than Biblical law, definitions afforded by the classical meaning of nomos and varied usage throughout the Pauline Epistles where it does not need to mean the Mosaic Torah.u This law would be more akin to what is described in the opening words of Mishnah tractate Pirkei Avot: “make a fence around the Torah”v (m.Avot 1:1).w

    “The religious Law of commandments in dogmas” of Ephesians 2:15b is the cause of the enmity between Jew and non-Jew witnessed in Paul’s day. It is not the cause of enmity or hostility because God’s Torah demands that His people be holy unto Him and separated from paganism, valuing human life and following a righteous code of conduct. This man-made law set forth in religious decrees causes enmity because it deliberately skews the work of God as originally laid forth in the Torah mandate for Israel to be a blessing to all! In the First Century, it would primarily include things like proselytic circumcision (cf. Ephesians 2:11), something not required by the Torah as an entryway into God’s covenant people, yet often set ahead of belief or faith in God and certainly required by the establishment of the time. Paul spoke against non-Jewish Believers going through such a ritual circumcision, because it would devalue one’s own native culture and the unique things that it could bring to the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3:28).x

    There are, in fact, several kinds of Rabbinical injunctions making up Jewish religious law that would have placed a kind of dividing wall between the Jewish people and the nations, which would have undoubtedly caused problems for the mission upon which Paul had embarked among the nations. Examples of this are replete in the Gospels, where Yeshua directly confronted many of the halachic practices in His day, that directly interfered with the work of His Father. While Yeshua instructed His Disciples to follow the lead of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2), there were clearly matters where they were hypocritical and were not to be followed (Matthew 23:3). In Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chs. 5-7), our Lord uses the statement “You have heard that it was said” (Matthew 5:27, 38, 43), and proceeds not to deny the continuance of the Mosaic Torah, but correct (gross) misunderstandings of it.y One of the most significant areas where Yeshua’s teaching directly confronted the understanding of His day appears in Matthew 5:43-44:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR [Leviticus 19:18] and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

    It is absolutely imperative to keep in mind that nowhere in the Tanach can any reference be found to “hate your enemy.” Kaiser asserts, “For some years now, I have offered my students a monetary prize if anyone can find the second part of that quote anywhere in the Old Testament. So far no one has claimed the prize.”z Stern also remarks on Matthew 5:43, “nowhere does the Tanakh teach that you should hate your enemy.”aa Those in the Qumran community, however, specifically commanded love only for the members of one’s covenant community and that hatred could be shown for the outsider:

    “He is to teach them both to love all the Children of Light—each commensurate with his rightful place in the council of God—and to hate all the Children of Darkness, each commensurate with his guilt and the vengeance due him from God” (1QS 1.9-11).bb

    The kind of dogma which would demand that one hate others outside of the accepted community of Israel was one which undeniably had to be abolished via the work of Yeshua, as our Lord emphasized love for all people as the first of the commandments (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28; cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). While it can be demonstrated that both Yeshua and Paul (cf. Acts 25:8) kept many of the extra-Biblical traditions of their day— they certainly clashed in the area of equality for all. (In fact, such equality put the gospel at odds with the Greco-Roman establishment every bit as much as with the Jewish establishment!) Hating other human beings, even sinners outside of the Jewish community, would have come into direct conflict with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). Any kind of extra- Biblical decree that would give justification, for hating other people, was to be jettisoned via the teachings and sacrificial work of Yeshua.

    If we understand the fact that the Temple was to be a testimony to the God of Israel among the nations (1 Kings 8:41-43)—and indeed a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56:6-7)— then the placement of a physical barrier prohibiting the nations from entering into the inner sanctuary was obviously something that He had never intended! Such a barrier, at least in the hearts and minds of the First Century Jewish Believers, had to have been removed by the work of Yeshua within them. This was something that was justified by much of “the religious Law of commandments in dogmas” within Second Temple Judaism, but was something that ran quite contrary to the missional intention of Moses’ Teaching—with Israel being a blessing to all nations!cc

    To a strong degree, the barrier wall in the Second Temple was a manifestation of Jewish hatred for the nations—not at all a manifestation of love and of spiritual concern. By His sacrifice, Yeshua tore down this wall and with it whatever human regulations placed unnecessary barriers between people and the Father. In so doing, Yeshua would be able to bring Jewish people and those from the nations together as kainon anthrōpon (kaino.n a;nqrwpon)dd or “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15c, NRSV/CJB/TNIV) in Him.

    It is only at the foot of Yeshua’s cross where redemption for all people can be found, and reconciliation between all people can be enacted (Ephesians 2:16). Paul asserts, “For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit” (Ephesians 2:18), as the true unity that God desires among the redeemed can only be found in the work of His Son. A significant effect of this, which Paul explains to the non-Jewish Believers of Asia Minor, is “you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizensee with God’s people and members of God’s household” (Ephesians 2:19). They are a part of the community of Israel, as a direct result of their faith in Israel’s Messiah. The assembly that the Messiah has established has been built up by the faithful work of both apostles and prophets, made to be like the Jerusalem Temple—but one composed of people filled with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:20-22).

    Yeshua the Messiah never came and eliminated the Torah, as per His crucial admonition in Matthew 5:17-19. Rather, the wall that He broke down was that of Rabbinical addition and/or manipulation to the commandments that had separated the non-Jews coming to faith from inclusion in Israel. It was never the Torah or Pentateuch itself that caused a wall of division to be erected not permitting the outsider from becoming a part of the Commonwealth of Israel. Certain Rabbinical ordinances or dogmas not found in the Torah ultimately led to a barrier wall being constructed on the Temple Mount, and caused this separation to take place.ff

    Endnotes:

    a Be aware of how “in Ephesus” (en Ephesō) does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of Ephesians 1:1 (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975], 601), and that in all likelihood the Epistle of Ephesians was originally a circular letter written by the Apostle Paul to assemblies within Asia Minor, eventually making its way to Ephesus. The RSV notably rendered Ephesians 1:1 with: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.”

    For a further discussion, consult C.E. Arnold, “Ephesians, Letter to the: Destination,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp 243-245, and the author’s entry for the Epistle of Ephesians in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic.

    b While the Apostolic Scriptures employ eirēnē for “peace,” this classical term largely only concerns an absence of war. Eirēnē notably translates shalom in the Septuagint, and as such would include total harmony between God, humankind, and ultimately all of Creation. This is a peace that includes “unimpaired relationships with others and fulfillment in one’s undertakings” (G. Lloyd Carr, “shālôm,” in TWOT, 1:931).

    c Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 313.

    d Derek Tidball, The Message of the Cross (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 228.

    e Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, 310.

    f The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 425.

    g Ibid., 706.

    h S. Westerholm, “Temple,” in ISBE, 4:772; cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp 22-24.

    i Francis Foulkes, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (London: Tyndale Press, 1963), 82.

    j Bruce, Colossians-Philemon-Ephesians, pp 297-298; cf. Ephesians 6:20 where Paul says he is “an ambassador in N.T. Wright further states, “The image of the dividing wall is, pretty certainly, taken from the Jerusalem temple, with its sign warning Gentiles to come no further” (Justification, 172).

    k Cf. D.G. Reid, “Triumph,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 951.

    l Cf. Mark 11:17; Mathew 21:13; Luke 19:46.

    m The NLT has the highly paraphrased, and also quite problematic: “By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles.”

    n Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 251.

    o BDAG, 340.

    p G. Schrenk, “to command, commission,” in TDNT, 235.

    q BDAG, 254.

    r Ibid.

    s Wayne E. Ward, “dogma,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 171.

    t The 1993 German Elberfelder Bibel has “das Gesetz der Gebote in Satzungen.” The singular term Satzung can notably mean “regulations, statutes and articles of a club” (Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, 516).

    u Worthwhile to consider here is “nomos,” in Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 457, which indicates,

    “Although nomos overlaps torah and the English word ‘law’ in meaning, it also has other connotations. An important additional concept was the idea of ‘custom’ in a particular sense: the Greeks often considered their customs to be ‘natural law.’ Thus, obedience to the law meant more than honoring certain written regulations; it included an entire way of life. In Jewish writings in Greek, the term ‘the law’ (to nomos) came to mean ‘Jewish religion.’”

    v Heb. ha’r’beih v’asu seyag l’Torah.

    w Kravitz and Olitzky, 1.

    x Consult the Excursus “Should Non-Jewish Messianic Believers ‘Convert’ to (Messianic) Judaism?” in the author’s commentary Galatians for the Practical Messianic.

    y Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God, 313 explains, “Jesus was correcting the oral traditions that had accumulated

    around the law (‘You have heard it said’). He did not say, as all too many presume, something like ‘It is written, but I now correct that by saying…’”

    z Ibid.

    aa Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 30.

    bb Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 127.

    cc Hegg’s thoughts are well taken:

    “[W]e may conclude that Yeshua abolished those Rabbinic laws which, when practiced, set aside the Law of God by separating Jew and Gentile which God intended to make one in Mashiach. This was the ‘dividing wall, the (Rabbinic) law contained in the ordinances (of the oral Torah)’. Those parts of the oral Torah which affirm the written Torah or are in harmony with it remain viable for the Messianic believer as the traditions of the fathers” (Tim Hegg. [1996].   The “DividingWall” in Ephesians 2:14Torah Resource.)

    Daniel C. Juster, Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995), 113 offers a similar view:

    “The commands and ordinances are not necessarily intrinsically Torah, but the oral extensions of these laws made Gentiles unclean and contact with Gentiles something to avoid. As well, it would abolish commands precluding a Jew worshipping in the most intimate way with a Gentile since the Gentile, in Yeshua, is no longer an idolatrous sinner.”

    See also the observations of Daniel C. Juster, Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995), 113.

    dd Note how the term anēr (avnh,r) or “male” is not employed here, but the more general term for humankind. An inclusive language rendering here is to be preferred.

    ee Grk. ouketi este xenoi kai paroikoi alla este sumpolitai.

    ff For a further discussion of these and the relevant surrounding passages, consult the author’s article “The Message of Ephesians” and his commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic.

     

    [av_hr class=’custom’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’100%’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’5px’ custom_margin_bottom=’5px’ icon_select=’no’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-2gbqcr’]

     

    Original article provided in its entirety from http://tnnonline.net/faq/E/Ephesians_2_14-15.pdf