Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

I asked this question in a site that is ran by Messianic Jews. This is what I asked.

Quote:
Shalom Chazzan,

I believe that the Law is fulfilled when one walks in the Spirit. That by receiving the Holy Spirit, the Lord has placed His Law upon my heart and has began a work in me that will enable me one day to walk 100% in His will (in the Kingdom of Heaven of course)...

One thing that has perplexed me is the Law against lighting fires on Sabbath. What is the significance of this Law to someone how has received the Spirit and is in Yeshua Ha Mashiach?


This is the answer I was given in return. I would like to know what you guys of the Jewish mindset think about his answer....


Quote:
Shalom John,

I will specifically answer your question about fire on the Sabbath. But first, I would like to explain a little about understanding difficult commandments.

There are many laws in Scripture that are hard to explain. In Judaism, these laws are called chukkim חוקים, which is often translated "statutes" or "ordinances." The most common example of this is the Red Heifer, a ritual which seems to make little practical sense.

Are God's laws random or arbitrary? My feeling is that they are not. Each law expresses a truth about God's will, whether we understand it or not. Parents often give loving instructions to their children, though children may not be able to understand. The best thing to do is obey out of love and trust.

Some people refuse to obey laws that they don't understand. God, in their minds, must fit into their framework of understanding. To these people, He is not their Lord and King; He is simply an advisor. He offers His opinion, and if it sounds good, they'll do it.

Others, on the other hand, would never want a God they can understand completely! If His thoughts are greater than our thoughts, then there will always be some things we will never know.

When it comes to issues such as lighting fires on the Sabbath, many people say, "It was only prohibited because lighting a fire was very difficult in ancient times. God prohibited it because it was a lot of work. Today, it is very easy to light a fire, so now it is OK."

However, the Bible does not give a reason why lighting a fire on the Sabbath is prohibited. It may be something much deeper than the amount of work involved.

In the Midrash (a collection of ancient Jewish legends), Solomon goes through the same type of thought process. It says,

Quote:
When God gave the Torah to Israel, He inserted therein positive and negative commands and gave some commandments for a king, as it says: Only he shall not multiply horses to himself…Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away; neither silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17:16–17).

But Solomon arose and studied the reason of God’s decree, saying: ‘Why did God command, He shall not multiply (ירבה yarbeh) wives to himself? Is it not: That his heart not turn away? Well, I will multiply and still my heart will not turn away.’

Our Sages said: At that time, the yod of the word ירבה (multiply) went up on high and prostrated itself before God and said: ‘Master of the Universe! Have you not said that no letter shall ever be abolished from the Torah? Behold, Solomon has now arisen and abolished one. Who knows? Today he has abolished one letter, tomorrow he will abolish another until the whole Torah will be nullified?’ God replied: ‘Solomon and a thousand like him will pass away, but the smallest tittle will not be erased from you.’

The reason why God has said: ‘Neither shall he multiply wives unto himself’ was only lest his heart should turn away. Solomon said, ‘With me there is God and I will withstand this temptation.’ Yet what is written of him? For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods (1 Kings 11:3). … It would have been better for Solomon to clean sewers than to have this verse written of him; for this reason did Solomon say of himself: ‘And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness and folly’ (Ecclesiastes 2:12).

Solomon said: ‘Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.’


Of course, that does not mean we are unable to learn some things and find meaning in the commandments. We most certainly can.

We must remember that while the Sabbath is a day of rest, it is more primarily a day of holiness. Holy (kadosh קדוש) in a Hebraic sense means set-apart, different, designated for a special purpose. By observing commandments such as these, we serve to make the Sabbath holy, that is, to sanctify it (lekadesh לקדש). It makes the day different from the other days.

All right, let's get into the good stuff, into the Messianic imagery.

As a result of the prohibition of lighting a fire after the Sabbath has begun at sunset on Friday, two customs have arisen from practical issues.

In the days before electricity, the only way to have light on into the Sabbath evening was to light a lamp at the last moment before it was prohibited. Also, it was practical to light a fire immediately after the Sabbath ended on Saturday evening. These customs developed into highly significant ceremonies. Furthermore, these rituals serve to draw a distinct line between common time and holy time, further sanctifying the day.

The Torah teaches that the Sabbath is a memorial of the Creation. By initiating the Sabbath with lit candles, it reminds us of the primordial light of creation. This light is called in the Machzor (holiday prayer book) for Rosh Hashanah, the אור עולם, the primordial light. It could also be translated, the Light of the World.

Since this light did not come from the sun and stars, we know that it was something other than natural light. But what is it? In the Book of Daniel, the Light surrounding God is personified.
Quote:
It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him.—Daniel 2:22


J. B. Lightfoot quotes a passage in the Talmud that references this (though I'm not sure where exactly it's found):

Quote:
R. Biba Sangorius saith, Light is the name of the Messiah. As it is written, Light dwells with him.


Of course, the Yeshua is called the Light of the World in many places, particularly in John:

Quote:
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. —John 1:9
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. —John 3:19
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."—John 8:2
While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.—John 8:2
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. —John 12:46


According to Louis Ginzburg's The Legends of the Jews, even God Himself is even the Light of the World:

Quote:
When Israel heard God's command that the lights of the sanctuary be lighted, they said: "O Lord of the world! Thou biddest us make a light for Thee that are the light of the world, and with whom light dwelleth." But God replied: "Not because I need your light do I bid you burn lamps before Me, but only the I might thereby distinguish you in the eyes of the nations that will say, 'Behold the people of Israel, that hold up a light before Him who bestoweth light upon the world.'


And from this we see that the Light of the World is represented by the Menorah in the Sanctuary. This agrees with what the Midrash and Talmud teaches.

The Midrash says:
Quote:
Jerusalem is the light of the world, as it says, And nations shall walk at thy light (Isa. LX, 3); and who is the light of Jerusalem? God, as it is written, But the Lord shall be to thee an everlasting,light (ib. 19).—Genesis Rabbah 59

Jerusalem is the Light of the World, because it contains the Temple and the Menorah.

In one passage of the Talmud, Herod is feeling remorseful because he killed the entire Sanhedrin, except for one man that he consulted with Torah questions. He asked him how what he could do to make up for his misdeed. The response:

Quote:
"As you have extinguished the light of the world, [for so the Rabbis are called] as it is written, For the mitzvah is a light and the Torah a lamp (Prov. 6:23) go now and attend to the light of the world [which is the temple, of which] it is written, And all the nations become enlightened by it." (Alteration of Isaiah 2:2 based on Aramaic).—b. Baba Bathra 4a

According to this, both Torah Teachers and the Temple (because of the Menorah) are called the Light of the World.

This sheds "light" on the Master's words when he said:

Quote:
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.—Matthew 5:14–16

Which city did he mean when he said, "A City on a Hill?" This is a common reference to Jerusalem. The basket he refers to is a common grain measure used in the Temple. The lampstand is a clear reference to the Menorah. The House is a common euphemism for the Temple, which is called the בית המקדש beit hamikdash, literally "House of the Holy Place."

All this imagery can be seen in the light of the Sabbath Candles.

Not only does this ceremony have deep signficance, but so does the concluding ceremony of Havdalah.

The first day of the week begins on Saturday evening. There is a great deal of support for the idea that Yeshua rose from the dead not on Sunday morning, but as the first day of the week began on Saturday night. I do not wish to get into that right now, since this is already a terribly long post and I have much more to say!

Nonetheless, resurrection imagery is extremely prevalent in the Havdalah custom. Certainly, lighting a candle after everything is dark clearly illustrates resurrection. (Without a prohibition on lighting fires, this imagery would lack much significance.) In addition, it is traditional to smell a blend of sweet spices. Interestingly, after the disciples "rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment," the women came to the tomb with more spices. (Luke 23:56–24:1) According to some traditions, the spices are there to keep your soul from leaving your body as the Sabbath ends!

Yet what about the meantime? What significance does not having fire in the meantime have?

Quote:
Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.—Exodus 16:23

The Sages compare the history of the world to a week. It is believed that the world will exist for 6000 years (corresponding to the six days of the week), and the seventh millennium will be the rest of the Messianic era.

The book of Hebrews also shows us how the Sabbath reminds us of the promise of the World to Come. Quoting Psalm 95 (a common Sabbath Psalm), the author connects for us the Sabbath, the Promised Land, and the World to Come. It is explained that just as we must eagerly labor during the week to prepare for the Sabbath, we must also do all our work in This World, because no work will be done in the World to Come.

That does not mean we will ever finish our work in This World. No one ever finishes everything by Friday afternoon. Yet, the Sabbath does not come because we are finished with our work. The Sabbath rest comes whether we are finished or not! So we must do all we can in the meantime. Likewise we are admonished to eagerly labor to enter that rest.

Quote:
So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.—Hebrews 4:9–11


Since the Sabbath reminds us of the world to come, it is only fitting that we not light fires and lamps, since it John told us in his vision:

Quote:
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.—Revelation 22:5

[Duchifas]

We (Jewish mindset guys) don't like it. It appears to be right. But appearance is as far as it goes.

The Jewish answer has always been -- because G-d said so. Sure, all the symbolism can be there, but it is only secondary.

In this guy's post, unfortunately, I saw many different symbolic reasons for why he does it (if he does it), but a direct and correct answer to your question "what's the significance of doing it" would have been something like "the significance of doing it is because G-d commanded it." Although he hints at it somewhere in the middle, it seems like passing reference only, in the middle of all the symbolism.

So, it looks like this Messianic Jew is much more Messianic (read: Christian) than Jew. That usually stems from a lack of a comprehensive Jewish education in his youth. Very sad case.


BTW, John, why is it this particular law that perplexes you so? Are you ok with all the other laws?

[Secondary Oak]

Duchifas wrote: We (Jewish mindset guys) don't like it. It appears to be right. But appearance is as far as it goes.
Really???

As I was reading it I thought to myself "hey, this is exactly what Duchifas is also saying". Honestly.

[Duchifas]

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: We (Jewish mindset guys) don't like it. It appears to be right. But appearance is as far as it goes.
Really???

As I was reading it I thought to myself "hey, this is exactly what Duchifas is also saying". Honestly.

Hey, watch it! I don't quote from Mathew and John! :twisted: :lol:

As I implied, many of the ideas this guy brings are authentic Jewish ideas, no doubt and no argument from me there. But he seems to be missing the essence of the thing, while concentrating on the less important aspects of it. (Either that, or he is really not good at expressing himself.) And that doesn't really get you very far.

It's like saying birkat hamazon (grace after meals) after eating pork. Sure, the prayer is straight from Judaism, but it doesn't quite make the pig kosher.

And that's what "Messianic" Judaism is.

The funniest thing, in this very sad affair, is the misnomer - messianic. The whole Judaism is messianic. Belief in the coming of Messiah is one of the fundamental principles of the faith, according to Rambam. So every Jew, you and me included, is messianic. So on what basis do the Jews who accept Jesus claim the title for themselves? :lol:

But then again we are a nation that just loves misnomers. Conservative Judaism -- there ain't nothing conservative about it. :) "Peace" process is another sad misnomer -- there is nothing peaceful about it.

Reminds me of a funny quote I saw, in response to what recent Israeli leaders often repeat how they are fighting for peace.

Fighting for peace is like having an orgy for virginity.

[John]

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: We (Jewish mindset guys) don't like it. It appears to be right. But appearance is as far as it goes.
Really???

As I was reading it I thought to myself "hey, this is exactly what Duchifas is also saying". Honestly.

Actually it is...except this guy believes that Jesus was the Messiah and IS the Messiah that will one day return.

I'm happy that chazzan has accepted Christ Jesus as His Lord, but I do think he's missing some important points.

Here's an article that covers what I believe pretty well...



Quote:
Oddly, we are getting asked about this from all over. Mature brothers calling and writing saying "There must be more <pause>, Is God calling us back to the Torah?", and such. Many have accused us of "dragging our feet" in getting with the new program for the church. I am baffled by this blindness.

I think this is epidemic. Legalism has its "glory", after all.

* 2 Cor 3:10 (NIV) For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.
* Heb 7:18-19 (NIV) The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
* Heb 9:1,10 (NKJ) ...The first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary... fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
* Heb 9:1,10 (Phi) Now the first agreement had certain rules for the service of God... The ceremonies are concerned with food and drink, various washings and rules for bodily conduct, and were only intended to be valid until the time when Christ should establish the truth.
* Heb 9:1,10 (NAS) ...The first covenant had regulations... which is a symbol for the present time...
* Heb 8:7,13, 9:1,10, 10:1 (NIV) For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another... By calling this covenant "new", he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary... external regulations applying until the time of the new order.... The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves.

Scripture, then, speaks of "the law" as having two components which are fairly clear cut:

There is the shadow law, and there is the moral law.

The shadow law deals with "regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary" which pointed to Messiah. Since the reality that cast the old covenant shadows has been revealed by God, the shadow law is "fulfilled" completely and is thus rendered "obsolete".

The moral law tells us not to kill, lie, commit adultery, etc. I do not think any sensible person would suggest that we are "free" to violate these moral strictures in the new covenant or in modern society.

So what we are talking about in the "New Legalism" is the shadow law. It could also be called the symbolic law, or the typological law, or the ceremonial law, or the old covenant law, or the regulation-for-worship law, or the religious law. But for our purposes let us use the term shadow law (Col 2:17, Heb 10:1, Heb 8:5).

Since the reality that the shadow law was pointing towards has been revealed (Mat 13:17, Eph 3:5, Heb 11:40), a focus on the religious aspects of the old covenant is a symptom of either extreme stupidity or a love for the "old wine" (Luke 5:39) that will not be repented of.

For example, if you came to visit me at my house one day... and I jumped onto the concrete and began to hug your shadow saying "I love you so much. You are that which leads me to my dear friend," either I am extremely stupid, or I like concrete better than you.

* Col 2:16-17 (NAS) Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

The shadow law has to do with the feasts, the sabbath, the sacrificial systems, the priesthood, the temple, the rituals, the observances, and the like. This is dispatched with, in its fulfillment in Yeshua.

* Gal 4:9-11 (NAS) But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

On the other hand, we have the moral law. Does being of the "new wine" of grace mean that "do not bear false witness" no longer applies? "Thou shalt not kill?" Obviously not. In fact, there are more of these kind of statements--and all of them more severe--in the New Testament than the Old. "You have heard it said that... but I say..." and "If a man asks you to... then..." So in this, the "law of love" (Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, James 2:8) is the more demanding. This is the whole point; it is impossible... short of the miracle of new birth and Holy Spirit resurrection life.

The Law has a purpose, a ministry, and a glory. Its purpose is to make sin clear. Its ministry is to condemn us (a valid enough ministry). This condemnation has a certain glory (detailed in 2 Corinthians 3). We have a Bible study posted on "Glory" that goes into this in some depth at: http://www.acts17-11.com/glory.html.

* Gal 3:24-25 (KJV) ... The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

I was not ashamed to be in sixth grade when I was a child; but to be in sixth grade when I'm 36 is a shame indeed. Or, worse still, to want to go back and sit with the sixth graders as an adult. There is something perverted about it, no?

* Hebrews 1:1 (NIV) In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.

Given this lavish revelation, shall we turn to shadows and insult God's grace? Shall we hug the concrete, or God's Son? Shall we spurn the costly and perfect revelation of Christ to embrace the dim shadows of the old covenant, after receiving of Him?

* Gal 4:9-11 (NKJ) But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

If Torah obedience is--as some are now suggesting--the "next spiritual step", then why was the opportunity so forcefully repudiated in the Spirit-infused inception of the Church?

* Acts 15:10-30 (NIV) [Simon Peter:] "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we [Jews] nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they [Gentiles] are." The whole assembly became silent as they listened... [James:] "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them..." Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church... [now termed "the Jerusalem council"] sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you... It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things...


We, with the Jerusalem council, can say a forceful "No!" as well. We can live in the simplicity of a new and better covenant; which by Christ-in-us makes it possible to exceed the moral law (such as abstaining from sexual immorality), and to which the Jerusalem council thought it only useful to conscript shadow activities that would be considered wrong (a stumbling block, see 1 Cor 8:4-13,10:19-32) even by Pagans. To all else besides what we would "do well to avoid", we should forcefully resist just as the Jerusalem council did, saying: "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved..." For if we know Jesus, we know better and should not be entertaining "hanker after the Law" temptations or passions. The Apostle Peter considered such a "yoke" of bondage, and so ought we if we perceive spiritual reality clearly.

A Jewish friend of ours once said: "With all this Messianic stuff, the Gentiles are now discovering just how dead 'things Jewish' really are." (After the spell wears off, of course. <smiles>) If such shadows have led us to Christ when our necks were paralyzed in a downward position, then praise God for casting them. But after we have found Christ, shall we curse ourselves by deliberately groveling in the shadows of the old covenant religious law?

* Gal 4:21 (NIV) Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

* Gal 3:13 (NIV) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us...

The issue, then, is not whether we are "under the law"; of course we are not. But neither are we "above the law." I like to say we have "graduated" from the school of the law. Yet if we are truly of grace, then we will do good works, to be sure. Not by aiming at them, but by receiving the life of Christ.

But let us come to the heart of the issue; which is the "way" we are saved, are walking, of which covenant we are, etc.

Why does the Bible draw such stark lines about not hankering to be "under the Law"? Why all the strident verses and warnings concerning the Law? Is focusing on the Law a rite of passage in spiritual maturity, or a renunciation of grace? Is shadow Torah observance growing in Messiah, or rather spitting in His face? For all our modern state of ambivalence about this, why the stern Biblical admonitions and Scriptural diatribes concerning just this subject?

What temptations are here being addressed by all these words of scripture? Do we consider ourselves immune to these temptations?

Imagine that you were in the first century, and an imposing "Christian rabbi" came along and suggested that any follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ought be properly circumcised. Remember now, you do not have Paul's writing yet. The Torah man tells you that all followers of God should have God's ETERNAL sign on them. Some in the fellowship get uncomfortable with this, pointing out that we have received a new, better covenant. But these people have little Biblical leg to stand on, and the Judaizers have commentaries galore and rabbi after rabbi on their side. Those who resist this "spiritual next step" offer something they call the gospel; which to detractors seems a bit vague and hard to pin down exactly. Against this, the rabbis point to how much God has emphasized obedience to circumcision in the Torah. Why, it would be scandalous to assert that God has changed his mind just because Jesus died and rose again. In the controversy, the Judaizers claim not to be in disagreement with the gospel, they are just saying that if you are truly saved then you will follow God in fulfilling this aspect of His old covenant shadow law. "We should not forget our Jewish roots in the faith", these Judaizers explain. But still, for all this persuasion, people with discernment in the group are uncomfortable. There is a tension in the air and the battle lines are being drawn. Now if you had been there, whose side would you have found more persuasive? The circumcisers have all this scripture on their side versus the opposition, which has a spiritual sense and a spiritualized, fulfilled view of these shadow matters of the Torah.

Really now: What would you do? And remember, no epistles on this specific Torah peddling yet. Who would you believe? Does it really matter?

And why not be safe and go ahead and submit to these zealous Torah men? Perhaps they are blurring the distinctions between the two covenants a bit. But what could it hurt, to play it safe?

Then you receive a letter from a very terse guy named Paul who speaks very boldly on this point that seemed to be so "disputable" before...

* Gal 5:1-4,7-10,12 (NIV) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is required to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace... You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be... As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Now what? Now what will you do? Believe this man, with his "talk at" attitude and over-clear discernment (doesn't even give the opposition proper respect for all their scholarship; rather unsporting of him, don't you think?) saying such bold new things without referring to ANY direct Torah authority... He seems to trust that those who have the Spirit will know what he is saying is true, and so makes the case directly to that confidence.

But now, here is the point. How is circumcision different from the rest of the religious shadow law? For all of these sorts of things are of the same kind, are they not? They are a symbolic shadows of spiritual realities that we now have in Christ. The only thing unique in this context about circumcision is that it just happened to be the "Torah du jour" emphasis and controversy back then, and Paul deals with it in no uncertain terms.

* Col 2:17 (NIV) These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

But I suppose the "Torah du jour" of today is different, somehow. Yes, in fact, it is. It has less of a leg--or history--to stand on than the circumcision controversy in the first century had. Thus, it is a greater sin for us to fall into such error now than even the Judaizers of old, since we have the benefit of having such legalistic temptations clearly warned against and soundly renounced in the record of New Testament scripture.

To draw out this challenge further... on what basis, before hearing from Paul (who you might have been inclined to reject... as he was not canonized yet) could you have--would you have--resisted the Judaizers of the first century? Show me the chapter and verse in the Tenakh? Rather, these things are discerned by those who have apprehended the gospel and will not let go of it (1 Jn 2:20-28). Against such there "is no law" (Gal 5:23b).

* 2 Cor 3:6-12 (NIV) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

To be sure, those who are truly born again will produce fruit "in keeping with repentance" as grace works obedience and righteousness into us (Luke 6:46). To be flippant about this is license rather than legalism. (For more on the relationship between grace, the Law, and obedience, see the Bible Study series on Grace at www.acts17-11.com/grace.html.

As well, certain people might feel led from time to time to observe certain portions of the shadow law due to a sense of personal leading of the Holy Spirit, and we are enjoined not to judge others in these matters (Rom 14:5-10). But, the issue we are here dealing with falls outside individual obedience or private spiritual discipline; for when a person tries to conscript others into the shadow law... they have crossed the line. If it is "Christ plus anything (fill in the blanks)", then the Gospel has been corrupted; and woe to the man through whom such teaching comes. For it is one thing to be personally empowered or persuaded by God to some spiritual discipline in the freedom that we have in Christ; but it is quite another thing to try to influence others to do the same. Even worse, to offer such a legalistic emphasis as "the next step" in spiritual progress is perilous business indeed.

The title of "the new legalism" is meant to be ironic. There is no "new legalism". There is only the old. Whether legalism fronts itself with circumcision or sabbaths or food (Mark 7:14-19, 1Tim 4:1-6, Col 2:20-21) or whatever... it is the same old leaven. Beware. It is a real temptation and a real danger.

We need to stop here and reflect upon these things, to understand why Scripture takes this subject so seriously. What is it really that we have put our faith in? Do we know the Lord as we ought, if we find ourselves so easily tempted to embrace the shadows of the obsolete religious law? How then should we live before the Lord, and also in regards to our influence and interaction with His other children? Let us take this up with the Holy Spirit in private, beyond this moment, so that we will have the mind of Christ in this matter. For we should not be entertaining ideas which are a rejection of the fullness of the revelation of Jesus. Instead, let us behold the magnificence of the Gospel of peace afresh, so that we will not be beguiled by such stark errors in the future. Let us seek the Lord to show us what Paul saw, and why he said what he did... with such stridency.

As a final point of clarification, not all Messianics are guilty of "the new legalism". Many in the Messianic movement are keen on nothing more than providing an environment of freedom, which is our awesome inheritance in Messiah. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the pendulum swing (from the license found so prevalent elsewhere) temptation towards legalism among Messianics is a "real and present danger". Some have crossed the line, and are no longer really "Messianic" in that they have chosen to exalt the religious shadows over the revelation of Messiah Yeshua, thus rejecting the reality of the incarnation. It is among such groups that we find the principle promulgators of this "back to the Torah" judaizing among us. But let us be clear that while much of the new legalism is coming from aberrant Messianics, not all Messianics are guilty, and we must be careful to not allow "guilt by association" to drift into our perceptions. Let us not besmirch the whole due to the falling away of a few, even if we must forcefully warn against the errors of that few.

* Gal 2:4-5 (NIV) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

* Titus 1:13-14 (NIV) ...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

[Duchifas]

I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)

[Secondary Oak]

Duchifas wrote: I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)
Handle what? Who? Where? Why?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)

I'm not so sure he's smart enough to figure this one out. :wink:

[Duchifas]

John's article right above. If you feel like it. If have nothing better to do, that is. I don't have time to deal with arguments that employ legalism to the Nth degree, to diss legalism. :)

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)

I'm not so sure he's smart enough to figure this one out. :wink:

If he isn't smart enough, then I don't know who is.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John's article right above. If you feel like it. If have nothing better to do, that is. I don't have time to deal with arguments that employ legalism to the Nth degree, to diss legalism. :)

Actually it explains legalism. Makes a lot of sense too. Did you read it?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)

I'm not so sure he's smart enough to figure this one out. :wink:

If he isn't smart enough, then I don't know who is.

I know. Just trying to "light a fire" under his butt. :-D

[Secondary Oak]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: I'll let Secondary Oak handle this one. :)

I'm not so sure he's smart enough to figure this one out. :wink:

If he isn't smart enough, then I don't know who is.

I know. Just trying to "light a fire" under his butt. :-D
:lol:

But you overrate me. I know calculus and Assembler, not theology.

And truthfully, I'm kind of busy right now, so I only skimmed the article and couldn't really understand what's the whole 'point'. I'd be happy if you could sum it up for us, John :) I promise to reply if it's a decent length.

One thing which I managed to understand bothers me, though. Seems like the author differentiates between "moral law" and "shadow law". Who says not stealing is "moral law" but keeping the Shabbat is not as important? Doesn't the Shabbat law appears earlier in the 10 commandments?

So the author implicitly decides for his own what laws to follow and what laws to abandon. Isn't that kind of... putting yourself above god? I would understand if he would first abandon all the laws and then follow a few basic ones out of social and morals reasons alone, and not for their divine origin. That's basically what I do.

And just out of curiosity, have Jesus ever said that the previous laws should be abandoned? That it's okay to eat pig or not be circumcised? Because the article mentioned a 1st century scenario in which early Christians are unsure about the Torah laws.

[John]

Quote: So the author implicitly decides for his own what laws to follow and what laws to abandon. Isn't that kind of... putting yourself above god? I would understand if he would first abandon all the laws and then follow a few basic ones out of social and morals reasons alone, and not for their divine origin. That's basically what I do.

And just out of curiosity, have Jesus ever said that the previous laws should be abandoned? That it's okay to eat pig or not be circumcised? Because the article mentioned a 1st century scenario in which early Christians are unsure about the Torah laws.

Well, actually I believe that the author is standing on the New Testament as his authority (which is the inspired word of God). A careful reading of the New Testament clarifies what Laws would be considered "Moral" Laws and which one where “Ceremonial”. You’re a smart guy…that shouldn’t be too hard of a concept to grasp.

Of course these Laws are not abandoned. May it never be!!!! They are truly fulfilled in Christ Jesus. If you haven't, read the article in its entirety when you have time.

Here is the link...it's easier to read.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/The_New_Legalism/the_new_legalism.html

[Secondary Oak]

John wrote: Well, actually I believe that the author is standing on the New Testament as his authority (which is the inspired word of God). A careful reading of the New Testament clarifies what Laws would be considered "Moral" Laws and which one where “Ceremonial”.
That's actually a good answer. What do you mean by "careful reading", though?

John wrote: Of course these Laws are not abandoned. May it never be!!!! They are truly fulfilled in Christ Jesus. If you haven't, read the article in its entirety when you have time.
How can one "fulfill" the dietary laws? How does that exempt others from obeying them?

[John]

Secondary Oak wrote: John wrote: Well, actually I believe that the author is standing on the New Testament as his authority (which is the inspired word of God). A careful reading of the New Testament clarifies what Laws would be considered "Moral" Laws and which one where “Ceremonial”.
That's actually a good answer. What do you mean by "careful reading", though?

John wrote: Of course these Laws are not abandoned. May it never be!!!! They are truly fulfilled in Christ Jesus. If you haven't, read the article in its entirety when you have time.
How can one "fulfill" the dietary laws? How does that exempt others from obeying them?

I should have said a “thorough reading" instead of "careful"...to be honest, the spelling of "thorough" kind of stumped me so I just wrote careful. It's actually pretty plainly written, it's just not really all in one place, kinda like the OT. :wink:


As for your second question. Answer me this.

What is the purpose of keeping the dietary Laws?
It's not just because God says so...that's silly. There is/was a purpose. What is it?

[Duchifas]

Secondary Oak wrote:
John wrote: Well, actually I believe that the author is standing on the New Testament as his authority (which is the inspired word of God). A careful reading of the New Testament clarifies what Laws would be considered "Moral" Laws and which one where “Ceremonial”.

That's actually a good answer. What do you mean by "careful reading", though?

No it's not. It's a horrible answer. :) Where does prohibition on homosexual acts fit in? What is so immoral, pray tell, about two adults having some consensual fun? Which category does NT place that in?

The crux of the problem is very simple -- the NT writers just chose on their own, which laws of OT are moral and which are not, i.e., using their subjective judgment. That's way worse than what the Oral Law can ever do, because while the Oral Law holds the Written Law as supreme authority, NT throws away a good 70% of it.

Now, the only license to do that, is if the NT came from G-d. And that is 1) a big leap of the imagination and 2) most importantly, the notion is inconsistent with the OT.

Quote: Of course these Laws are not abandoned. May it never be!!!! They are truly fulfilled in Christ Jesus. If you haven't, read the article in its entirety when you have time.

Fulfilled in JC is just a fancy way of saying cancelled. We can dabble for a week about the semantic differences between "fulfilled" and "cancelled" but the end result is clearly apparent -- en masse Christians don't observe OT laws, i.e., as per NT, they were cancelled. And the end result is what matters.

[Duchifas]

Quote: As for your second question. Answer me this.

When did you convert to Judaism? Answering a question with a question is a Jewish national trait. :lol: Welcome to the faith. ;)

Quote: What is the purpose of keeping the dietary Laws?
It's not just because God says so...that's silly. There is/was a purpose. What is it?

It is anything BUT silly. G-d is G-d, and you are not. G-d does not need to explain Himself to you ON EVERY OCCASION. And if you need to know the purpose and reason for every single thing that you do -- who is your god? G-d, or your intellect? Is the purpose of the Torah to show us how to serve G-d, or to satisfy our childish curiosities?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: No it's not. It's a horrible answer. Smile Where does prohibition on homosexual acts fit in? What is so immoral, pray tell, about two adults having some consensual fun? Which category does NT place that in?

Is there anything ceremonial about sex? No?

Then issues concerning homosexuality is a Moral issue...as the New Testament clears up, just in case you can't see why that would be true instinctfully.

Quote:
The crux of the problem is very simple -- the NT writers just chose on their own, which laws of OT are moral and which are not, i.e., using their subjective judgment. That's way worse than what the Oral Law can ever do, because while the Oral Law holds the Written Law as supreme authority, NT throws away a good 70% of it.

What makes you so sure about that? I seem to remember reading about a New Covenant in the book of Jeremiah. Are you choosing to throw that out as God's word?

[John]

Quote: It is anything BUT silly. G-d is G-d, and you are not. G-d does not need to explain Himself to you ON EVERY OCCASION. And if you need to know the purpose and reason for every single thing that you do -- who is your god? G-d, or your intellect? Is the purpose of the Torah to show us how to serve G-d, or to satisfy our childish curiosities?

You have reduced God to a capricious prankster who just barks out orders for the heck of it. I personally don't believe this is how God is presented in Torah. He is a God abounding in loving kindness and grace. He gives us rules for a reason, because He loves us. So if God is really as the Torah describes...and I believe He is, then He gave us every Law for a reason.

Quote:
When did you convert to Judaism? Answering a question with a question is a Jewish national trait.

Well, I think my point will make more sense if he has the foundation down first.