So as I was reading through the Bible today a strange thought hit me. I was reading
in Jeremiah 5 and right up front in verse one you read, “Wander through the
streets of Jerusalem. Look and investigate; search through her squares and see
whether you find anyone—even one person there—doing justice and seeking truth.
Then I'll forgive them.” The thing that struck me as weird was that these people,
had Solomon’s Temple sitting in the city. The very seat of God on
earth was a constant reminder that the one true God was living in their midst.
They had all of this going for them, and yet…
see whether you find anyone—even one
person there—doing justice and seeking truth….
If even one person was able to be found, then God was forgive the people of the
city. His people. This invokes thoughts of Sodom & Gomorrah’s destruction,
but the saving number for Jerusalem was even greater than it was for those
cities. Abraham had haggled God all the way down to 10 righteous people
(Genesis 18). Here, in the city where God Himself had set His throne, all He
wanted was one righteous person. If Sodom were given that bargain then it would’ve
been saved, based solely on Lot’s actions when the angels came into the city.
I couldn’t fathom how, in the midst of all of the reminders of who the LORD is,
they could’ve fallen so far that not even one person could be found to stand in
the gap for Jerusalem.
I thought of Israel, coming out of Egypt and committing the debauchery at the
foot of Mount Sinai, right after they had seen the mighty hand of God separate the
waters of the Red Sea. I’ve marveled in the past at how they could’ve fallen so
far, so fast after seeing what they’d seen.
But I always come back to this: how much more amazing is the miracle that has
been done in my life…
If we turn a few pages in the book of Jeremiah and we get to chapter 16 then we’ll
read about an event so powerful that the exodus out of Egypt will be
overshadowed.
"Therefore,
days are coming," declares the LORD, "when it will no longer be said,
'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought up the Israelis from the land of
Egypt.' Rather it will be said, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the
Israelis up from the land of the north and from all the lands to which the LORD
had banished them.' I'll bring them back to their land, which I gave to their
ancestors. (Jeremiah 16:14-15)
There’s another verse in the Bible which, I
think, will inform us of what this Greater
Exodus which the prophet Jeremiah was speaking of really was. In Luke
9:28-36 we see an account of what is commonly referred to as the Mount of Transfiguration, where Jesus is
speaking with Moses and Elijah. In verse 31 we read, “Appearing in glory, they
were speaking of Yeshua’s departure, which was about to take place in
Jerusalem.” The word which is translated as ‘departure’ is the Greek word ‘exodos’. Do you wanna guess what word we
get from that word? That’s right, exodus.
Since the time of Yeshua, is there anything in the world which has been proclaimed
more than the death and resurrection of the Messiah? Has there ever been
anything which has been pronounced more than that exodus from the captivity of
sin and death that the Messiah has led His people on?
So, the Israelites coming out of Egypt may have messed up something fierce at
the foot of Mount Sinai…
…but how much more severe is our mistake when we put other things in front of
our worship of our Lord and Savior?
And, to bring this all back to where we started here today, we can look at
Jeremiah 5 in wonder at how there could’ve been none righteous in Jerusalem
when the Temple of the LORD was sitting in their midst, but how do we parse
that in light of 1 Corinthians 6:19, where we read that the body is the Temple
of the Holy Spirit? It’s possible to argue over exactly what the meaning of
this verse really was, but what we generally don't argue over is that the Holy Spirit is
living in us. The whole point of the Temple in Jerusalem is that it was God’s
home on earth. The Temple is the place that God chooses to call His home on
earth. In light of this, if you are one of the redeemed of Messiah then you are a temple of God. And If I want to be
amazed that the people of Jerusalem could’ve fallen so far when they had the throne
of the LORD right down the street, how much more amazed should I be that we can
have a throne inside of us and we don’t act like it ALL THE TIME?
I’m not saying this to try to condemn anyone out there, because I’m looking at
myself more than anyone else right now. I’m amazed at how filthy I am, and how
much growth I have to do. I’m amazed that, being the Temple of the Holy Spirit, God
hasn’t burned me to the ground. This is the most amazing grace, and it’s up to
me to remember it!
When I first started writing this I figured it was just going to be a short, little post. Maybe 500-750 words. The more I wrote the more I could see needed to be written. In the end it had over 2,700 words and there were even 500 words that I had edited out of it. Hopefully you'll find the following to be a blessing. I've included a few books at the end for suggested reading. These are materials that I called back to when writing different parts of this post. While I don't think you need to have read any of them to understand what I've written, if you have read them you will probably at least understand why I've written what I've written a little better. If nothing else, they are all good reference materials!
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was (Mark
12:29-31) He quoted the Shema out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
"Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)
Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,
the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The
second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other
commandment greater than these." (Mark
12:29-31)
With our more western eyes we as Christians (or maybe I’m
just talking about my personal experience growing up?) are so far removed from
the Hebrew culture that our first century Scriptures were written in that we
don’t understand that the Shema is recited every day (twice per day, actually)
in the traditional Jewish home. So, when Jesus was asked what the greatest
commandment is, this was pretty much a no-brainer.
I’ve already written on what it means to love the LORD a couple years ago so why don’t I
just link to that here and move onto the second part of this statement… but
I’ll just say this real quick: We show our love to God by showing our obedience
to Him. But, again, that’s in that older post. Let’s get to the second part of
this greatest commandment…
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Initially we had looked at the book of Mark, but let’s look at this same
account in the book of Matthew.
"Teacher, which is the great
commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall
love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law
and the Prophets." (Matthew
22:36-40)
In this account we get a further explanation at the end.
Everything that is meant to be learned in all of the Torah, and everything
meant to be learned in all of the rest of the Old Testament is right there in
those 2 commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. Every other commandment
that we find in all of the Old Testament (and the New Testament, too, for that
matter) is based on these two instructions.
Love God and love your neighbor.
The rest of the book is all about discovering how to do those things. And, yes,
sometimes it gets complicated.
Love God and love your neighbor.
We’ve seen that you show love to God by expressing your allegiance to Him
through your obedience to His instructions, but how do you show that you love
your neighbor? Well, for starters, you can look at the second half of the 10
Commandments. The first four are all about loving God, and then the next six
are instructions on how to love your neighbor. When Jesus said that all of the
Law and the Prophets depend on those two commandments He wasn’t just messing
around. Those two commandments are the meat behind all of the 10 Commandments. In fact, traditionally it is typically understood
that there are 613 total commandments in the Torah (and there are over 1,000
given by Jesus in the New Testament), and each one of those commandments can be
summed up as love God or love your neighbor.
We’ve seen Jesus talk about loving God and your neighbor from two different
books in the Bible, why don’t we look at a third…
And
behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written
in the Law? How do you read it?" And he answered, "You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And he
said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will
live." (Luke 10:25-28)
But then the ‘lawyer’ followed this up by asking another
question which puts the whole thing in context, and make it a lot more
difficult, too. This lawyer asked the Messiah, “who is my neighbor?” It’s a
perfect question, really. If I’m supposed to love my neighbor as much as I love
myself, who in the world is my neighbor? The answer that Jesus gives is a game
changer. In true Jesus-fashion, He answered with a story (he who has ears to
hear let him hear…)
Jesus
replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell
among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half
dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he
passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place
and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed,
came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him
and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own
animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took
out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and
whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' Which of these
three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the
robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus
said to him, "You go, and do likewise." (Luke 10:30-37)
Let’s take a minute to look more closely at the example Jesus
provided us with. What I want to look at is who could’ve helped the man, and
then who actually did. First of all, the examples given go in descending order
of how highly an Israelite would’ve thought of the person, largely based on how
close that person was allowed to the Holy of Holies. I guess I should clarify
something real quick: all Priests were Levites but not all Levites were
Priests. Just like all New Yorkers are Americans but not all Americans are New
Yorkers (I believe the first person I heard say this was Rico Cortes, but it
was more about Puerto Ricans than New Yorkers, or something like that…).
So the Priests, out of this group of people, were the people who were allowed
to go to the place on the Temple that had the highest level of kedusha
(holiness). Important to the subject matter would be that according to Levitical
Law, you could become ritually unclean and unable to approach the Temple. We
often think of ‘unclean’ as being synonymous with ‘sin’, but this really isn’t
the case. To be ritually unclean wasn’t something to be desired but it really
didn’t change the day-to-day life of most people in the Kingdom. However, if you
had to work at the Temple for your vocation, being ritually unclean would’ve
meant that you weren’t able to do your job. Not coincidentally, coming in
contact with a dead body would make you ritually unclean. In fact, the
Pharisees believed that if even your shadow passed over a dead body then you
become unclean. So, with that minimal understanding, let’s look at the actions
of the priest in question.
First of all, it’s important to notice that the priest came down the same road as the man who had
been robbed and was laying there half dead. The important part of this is that
the priest was actually traveling away
from the Jerusalem and the Temple. Jerusalem is at a higher elevation than
Jericho and you would go down to Jericho and up to Jerusalem. So the priest was
traveling away from Jerusalem, and away from the Temple where his level of
sanctification would be most important. He’s moving away from the place where his
having touched a dead body would mean that he couldn’t perform his duties. So
regardless of whether your shadow touching a dead body actually made you
unclean, this priest’s being unclean wouldn’t have mattered as far as performing
his priestly duties; he easily could’ve helped the man in distress. In fact,
his true priestly duty (being the representative of God to the people) would’ve
been to go out of his way to help out this robbed and beaten man. In N.T.
Wright’s book The Day the Revolution
Began he explains the vocation of image-bearers and priests as follows,
Humans were made to be “image-bearers,”
to reflect the praises of creation back to the Creator and to reflect the
Creators wise and loving stewardship into the world. Israel was called to be
the royal priesthood to worship God and reflect his rescuing wisdom into the
world. (p.99)
Israel had for-the-most-part declined their priestly duty
when they told Moses that they wanted a mediator between God and themselves,
but this didn’t change their calling. If priests were supposed to reflect God’s
rescuing wisdom into the world, I don’t think we need to look much further than
Jesus to see how that look. I doubt there’s anyone out there who would come
away from reading these verses and say that Jesus was saying that the man
should’ve just been left there.
The Levite in this story would have similar restrictions placed on them
regarding cleanliness, only it would be less strict than those placed on
Priests. But still, the Levite would not naturally want to risk coming in contact
with a dead body. I don’t really want to spend too much time on the Levite,
since a good understanding of his station in life would’ve just been gone over
when we talked about the priests. You know, but a little less than a priest…
Before we get to the Samaritan I want to point out that these first two
examples that Jesus gives us would have been considered to be in the highest echelon
of Jewish society. The LORD was smart enough to not the king be allowed to also
be the High Priest so the King would’ve been seen as standing on the top rung
of the social ladder, but the High Priest would’ve been right below the king.
And the rest of the priests would’ve been right beneath him. And then the
Levites would find their place right after the priests. In fact, as far as the
Temple (the actual home on earth of the King of the Universe), the High Priest
would’ve been held in higher standing than the king. The High Priest was the
only one who was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies (and, even then, only one
day each year…). In 2 Chronicles 26 there’s even the telling of King Uzziah
being stricken with leprosy by the LORD because he was so prideful as to think
that he could burn incense at the altar of incense inside of the Temple.
Looking into what leprosy would’ve been in Biblical times and how that is
different than today is a totally different study, but it’s worth looking into.
So now we have a Samaritan. Anyone who’s been around the block once or twice in
Christian circles has probably heard that the Jews hated the Samaritans. The reason behind this is a bit long but I
think it should suffice to say that the Samaritans were living in the land of
the former Northern Kingdom, and even claimed to worship the LORD, but they claimed
that God’s holy mountain was not in Jerusalem (along with quite a few other
things, but this should at least let you know why most Jews would view the
Samaritans as heretics who shouldn’t be dealt with). And yet, there’s a Samaritan
man who sees this same man who has been left for dead, and apparently even
looks like he may already be dead, and he not only lets his shadow touch the
man but he takes care of him. He attempts to disinfect the man’s wounds by
pouring oil and wine onto them (hey, I guess any alcohol is better than no
alcohol when you’re trying to disinfect…). Then he does something even more
outrageous: The Samaritan placed the man on his own animal and led him to an
inn. In our culture the part the comes next probably seems like the greatest
thing but, in the Ancient Near East placing a foreigner on your own animal and
leading it around would’ve made it look like you the servant and the man on the
animal were the master. In an honor and shame society this would’ve been the
same as when Jesus washed the feet of all of His disciples!
Is there any question as to who acted the most ‘neighborly’?
Now it’s time for some reflection and an admission: I’ve lived in the same
place for 4 years, right next door to the same neighbor for that whole time,
and I’ve talked to him like 2 or 3 times. How neighborly am I being? How much
of an ambassador am I being for my King when I don’t even remember my literal
next-door neighbor’s name?
Really quickly here I would like to circle back to the quote earlier from N.T.
Wright. We talked about how Israel was called to be a kingdom of priests (Ex
19:6) but we didn’t mention how that means us, too. We, though we may have been
born gentiles, have been grafted into the olive tree that is Israel (Romans
11:17-24). Another way to say this is that we have been adopted into the
family. So if Israel’s vocation was that of being a royal priesthood, should we
expect that we also are a royal priesthood? Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may
proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His
marvelous light.” Peter was obviously calling back to the words written in Exodus
but he’s saying them to believers in Jesus. The book of 1 Peter was written to
churches in Asia Minor (think Turkey), and we know that there were a decent
amount of Jewish believers in those communities but we also know that there
were quite a few believers who were once gentiles. The entire book of Galatians
(which was a city in Asia Minor) was written so that the believing congregation
would not give credence to those Jews coming up from Jerusalem saying that the
non-Jewish believers needed to convert to the teachings of Judaism (for lack of
a better term) before becoming believers in Messiah, or even before they were
allowed to share a meal with them. For better understanding of this whole
ordeal I would suggest the book King,
Kingdom, Citizen by Tyler Dawn Rosenquist.
So what’s the takeaway?
If I had to sum it all up real quick I would probably quote Jesus when He said
the following:
“You have heard that it was said,
‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of
your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:43-45)
So who’s your neighbor? Everyone, including your enemy.
Let that one marinate for a little while…
Suggested Reading:
The Bible
Exodus 19, 23; Leviticus 19; Deuteronomy
6; 2 Chronicles 26; Matthew 5, 22; Mark 12; Luke 10; 1 Peter
I had been ruminating on this psalm for quite some time (even though it's only 5 verses long) and just when I was about ready to collect my thoughts and put them out there Tyler over at The Ancient Bridge went and posted something that expressed most of what I wanted to say and made me question if my post was even going to be necessary. Quite honestly, if this was going to be on something longer than 5 verses then I probably wouldn't have. But, I figured in the name of keeping things going, I may as well get my thoughts out there for you as well. I hope that you took the opportunity to read what Tyler wrote. If you haven't then I'm going to link it RIGHT HERE so that you can check that one out, too. She's a great writer and I think you'll appreciate what she has to say.
With that said, here's what I came away with...
A Psalm of David. 1 O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who
shall dwell on your holy hill?
This one starts out with a lofty goal. When speaking of the LORD’s tent, we
need to remember that, before there was a temple in Jerusalem, there was a
tabernacle. The NKJV translates this verse as, “LORD, who may abide in Your
tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill?” The word translated as ‘tent’ is ‘ohel’
(H168 – אהל). This is the word that was used when speaking of the Tent of
Meeting (Ohel Moed – אהל מועד) in Exodus 33, and not the normal word used for
tent (sukkah – סכּה). This is the place that Moses would go to meet with the
LORD, in person. And the ‘holy hill’? You mean the mountain of the one true
God? Yeah, who, indeed!?
That’s why the upcoming verses are so impactful.
2 He who walks blamelessly and does what is
right and speaks truth in his heart;
There are a few people in the Bible who are said to be blameless. This is an
extremely tall order. While the term doesn’t demand that you never sin, it does
demand that when you do sin you
notice it and you repent (turn away with no intention of turning back). All of
that being said, the Hebrew word that is translated as “blameless” is the same
word that is used to describe the sacrificial animal offerings who are without blemish
(tâmı̂ym – תּמים). It is also the same word that’s used when describing Noah
as ‘perfect’ in his generations. So, all things considered, this is still a
pretty tall order. The takeaway, though, is that this lofty goal is actually
attainable. No matter how hard it may seem at first glance, this is a thing
that can be accomplished. You may not be able to do this overnight (though, I’m
perfectly willing to admit that with God all things are possible) but it’s something
to shoot for. When a person first starts exercising they’re not able to run a 4
minute mile, or deadlift 500 lbs (at least this is what I’ve heard – I’m sure those
who choose to exercise would be willing to give you more detail if you care to
search out one of those types of people…); you have to bring you body into
submission and train it to be able to perform at those levels. Likewise, we
have to do the same thing to exercise ourselves in spiritual matters. Paul
speaks to this in 1 Cor 9:27 when he says, “No, I keep on disciplining my body,
making it serve me so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not
somehow be disqualified.” We have to push on to the goal (Phil 3:14), but that
goal is not out of reach (Deut 30:12, Rom 10:6)!
3 who does not slander with his tongue and
does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
I’m actually working on an article right now that dives more deeply into who
are neighbor is so I don’t want to dig too
deeply into that right here, but the easy answer is that it’s everyone. So if the
goal is to be able to enter into the tabernacle of the LORD, this should be
convicting to pretty much all of us. It’s so easy, especially in today’s social
media culture, to let the tongue slip and ‘slander’ someone. The dictionary
definition of slander is to make a false or
damaging statement about someone. Did you notice the that I highlighted the
word ‘or’? That means that, even if it’s true, speaking a damaging thing about
someone is slander. Man, I’ve messed that one up quite a bit, and I owe a lot
of apologies. Choose your words wisely because we have a standard that we
should be trying to live up to. We read in the book of James the following:
Do not speak evil against one
another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother,
speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you
are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he
who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12)
I know that my Judge is a just God, and that He
is all-knowing and can see every side of every situation. Why would I think
that I know any point of view aside from my own? Instead, shouldn’t I be
supportive to my neighbors? Shouldn’t even my rebukes be dipped in honey instead
of dripping with sarcasm and stuffiness? I know that I often fail at this one,
but I want to get better, and I hope act more like my Messiah when given the
opportunity.
4 in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not
change; 5 who does not put out his
money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does
these things shall never be moved.
If someone fears the LORD, even if I disagree with their specific twist on
a pet doctrine, why would I give them anything but honor when I’m dealing with
them or referring to them? This is so convicting. Am I wise enough to discern
if a person truly fears the LORD?
I always try to make it a point in my life to never charge interest if I lend
money to someone. Honestly, if I do lend money out I usually give it with the
expectation that it won’t be returned. More often than not, I tell the people
that it’s a gift and that I don’t want repaid. I’m not saying this so that I
can sound like a better person than anyone. Truth be told, the reason I do it
that way is because I’m worse. If I don’t make it known that it’s a gift then I’ll
obsess over being repaid and that can lead to bitterness and offense. I know my
limitations and I don’t ever want to have bitterness and offense toward one of
my brothers or sisters. So I guess that moral of that story is to know yourself,
and know what you’re capable of (good or
bad).
I hope that this has been a blessing, and I hope that you are spurred onward to
living the life that the Father wants you to live.
May our allegiance to our King make us the ambassadors that He needs us to be
to this lost and hurting world!
Recently the Creation Science Ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) published an article on their website
attempting to critique and warn people of what they are referring to as the
Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) (Article
linked here)[1]. I
should first probably state that, though I wouldn’t necessarily label my belief
system as being HRM, that is how a great many would probably, and almost
certainly how the fine folks at AiG would view my beliefs. In this article I
will be attempting correct some of the claims made in the AiG article, which
could have only been made if they did no actual
research but only talked people who have taken issue with the HRM (which should be done if you’re digging into a
subject, but you should also seek out qualified individuals from the other
side, as well), or if they sought out the most extreme adherents claiming to be
HRM and used their stated beliefs to define an entire denomination(?). This
would be like basing an article on the mainstream evangelical church on the
beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church, or the likes of Stephen Anderson.
In the article AiG rightly stated that, “properly defining this movement is
difficult because it has no central hierarchy or leader, and no official
statement of faith for members to endorse.” The article goes on to state, “while
this article will explain and critique some of the major teachings connected to
this movement, we recognize that some adherents to the HRM may not agree with
all of the positions outline here.” I’m racking my brain, trying to remember this
line being in the article the first time I read it but I’m having trouble
placing it, so this second quotation seems to have been added to the article
after they encountered a large amount of negative feedback on the AiG Facebook
page due to the article’s many deceitful and slanderous claims. Of course, if
it was in there I will admit to my
error and state so publicly.
When the article was posted to Facebook the author seems to have been
commenting with at least one commenter before deleting all of his comments and removing
himself from any comment thread. It’s possible that AiG has a policy of not
having the author interact in the comments and this is why he removed himself,
though this seems to be a strange policy to have if you’re trying to promote
your organization’s “research”. Another fair reason why the author (Tim
Chaffey) may have removed himself from the comments is that those who felt that
their personal walk with Jesus was being vilified were attacking him. If this
is the case, then I stand firmly behind the author and say that he in no way
deserves to be attacked. We are all followers of Messiah and a body fighting
against itself is not going to make the Father happy. I have to assume that the
author is doing what he’s doing because he’s genuinely concerned about some
theological issues that he sees which he fears may be confusing people. We
should remember what the Fruit of the Spirit are (Galatians 5:22-23) when we
interact with this brother, or anyone who has a legitimate concern about proper
doctrinal understanding and how we live our lives. Surely, stand firm in your
convictions, but let iron sharpen iron and move into debate with love, joy,
peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and
self-control.
Now that we’ve affirmed the way that we intend on moving forward with this
writing, let’s look at some of the claims made by the article in question.
The original article makes four major arguments as to why the HRM is wrong and
potentially dangerous. Here we will attempt to look at each claim and verify
the validity of the AiG article’s argument. The major points of the article are
reliant upon the following statements:
1.Certain Jewish teachings are elevated to the level
of Scripture.
2.The Hebrew Roots Movement misunderstands the extent
and scope of the Mosaic law.
3.The “Jerusalem Council” rejected the notion that
Gentile believers must follow the Law of Moses.
4.The Apostle Paul refuted many of the most
popular teachings of the HRM.
Before I look at the arguments presented in the article I
would like to talk a little bit about
my personal faith.
First and foremost I want to state that absolutely every one of my beliefs sits
firmly in line with the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.
We believe the Bible
to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
We believe that there
is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe in the
deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in
His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His
bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in
His personal return in power and glory.
We believe that for
the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is
absolutely essential.
We believe in the
present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is
enabled to live a godly life.
We believe in the
resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the
resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
We believe in the
spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is not a single thing in that statement that I would
disagree with. There’s probably one part of that statement that some would
question if I truly believe so we’ll touch on that a little bit more closely.
When it says, “We believe … in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed
blood,” I have no problem making and believing this statement with all my
heart. There are deeper theological waters to wade in when looking at Hebrews
10:10 but the very essence of the verse (“By that will we have been sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”) implies that
the sacrifice of Jesus was the vehicle by which the sins were remitted even for
those in the Old Testament, though they at the time were offering place-holder earthly
sacrifices until the heavenly remission of sin should come through the offering
of the Son of God.
Now that I’ve covered the basics, let me expand upon what it is about my way of
life that may make me different than the traditional evangelical.
1. I believe that the whole Bible is still relevant and useful for instruction
(2 Tim 3:16), including the instructions (oftentimes called The Law) given to
the Israelites by God, through His servant Moses.
2. I believe, as Scripture says, that the way you show love
to God is to obey His commands (John 14:15, Ex 20:6, Deut 5:10, Deut 5:29, Deut
11:1, Deut 11:22, Deut 13:3-4, Deut 19:9, 1 John 2:1, 1 John 2:3-6…). This in
no way means that I am doing these things to attain salvation or add anything
to the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is simply an outward sign of an
inward change.
3. Yes, this means that I no longer eat pig products. The
hardest part about this is that it is extremely difficult to order pizza
because almost every pizza topping you ever loved is pig related…
There are many other subtle (and sometimes not so subtle)
differences but a great many of them will be touched upon throughout the course
of this response the AiG article so feel free to comment and ask questions if
you would like any further explanation on any matter.
One last thing before we start, I need
it to be stated that I don’t believe that following or not following the Law is
at all a salvific issue. I will make my case for why I think that there’s good
reason to at least look into whether the Law is still important today, but that
doesn’t mean that I think any less of my brothers and sisters in Christ who
haven’t seen things the way I see them. It’s possible that there could be an
urge to think that I think I’m “holier” than those who don’t do these things.
The truth is, most Christians do keep
almost as much as the law as I do, they just wouldn’t define it as such. But
nobody really feels like they’re being legalistic when they fight off the urge
to murder someone. My responsibility is to deal with what God is showing me, and if people want to ask me why I
live the way live then maybe that means that they’ve seen Christ in me. My
sincere prayer is that everyone reads this with an open heart and tests it
against Scripture. I know that I’m going to say some things that are going to
make some traditional evangelicals upset and, trust me, I’m going to say some
stuff that is going to make some Hebrew Rooters upset. I should probably also say that I am nobody special when it comes to the Hebrew Roots community and I'm certainly not a spokesperson. I'm just a concerned believer who has felt the need to say something. I pray you are blessed
by at least a small part of what I’ve written.
Alright, let’s get to it…
I’m going to do my best to follow the original article’s outline so I want to
start with the first major category which is, “What is the Hebrew Roots Movement?”.
The meat of the article starts out with a pretty deceitful and misrepresentative
statement which subtly shifts the way you’re thinking about the upcoming
topics, “broadly speaking, the followers of the HRM believe that Christians are
obligated to follow Jewish laws and practices from the books of Moses.” There
are a couple problems with this sentence alone. First, and foremost, it should
be stated that only a very small minority of those who would claim any part of
the HRM would use a word like “obligated” when talking about following Torah.
As I stated in the 2nd explanation of what makes my beliefs
different than your average evangelical, you don’t follow Torah because you’re
obligated, you do it as a show of loving obedience to God. The fact that the
AiG article set the tone by starting out this way is disingenuous and deceitful,
especially considering what they wrote in their 6th endnote where the recognize that those in the HRM do, in fact state this. So long as they had done their due diligence and asked pretty
much anyone in the HRM they would have never heard the word “obligated”. The
second thing to be addressed here is the use of the term “Jewish laws”. This is
an easy mistake to make but, while the Torah was given to the Jews (those from the tribe of Judah), it was also
given to all of the other tribes and the mixed multitude (Ex 12:38) that came
out of Egypt with the Israelites. Giving an explanation for what it meant to be
a Jew by the time the First Century rolled around is a little beyond the scope
of this writing but I feel that I’m going to have to at least touch on it here.
This will be extremely barebones, but
here goes…
After the time of King Solomon the nation of
Israel was split into two separate kingdoms: The Northern Kingdom, which was
the House of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom which was the House of Judah (the
Jews). Because of much sin and spiritual fornication both Kingdoms were eventually
conquered and exiled away to foreign lands. The Northern Kingdom was conquered
by the Assyrians and the people were scattered over the entire Assyrian kingdom
as this was the practice of the Assyrians upon conquering a people. The Southern
Kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians and they exiled to Babylon and the
surrounding areas. The exiles from the Southern Kingdom were allowed to remain in
community together while living in the Babylonian kingdom and eventually were
allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the Temple. There were
some from the tribes of the Northern Kingdom who had eventually found their way
back to their homeland and had integrated into the peoples returning from
Babylon. From this point forward those who lived in the land were traditionally
referred to as Jews instead of Israelites, largely because they became a people
more defined by where they lived (the province of Judea) than their tribal heritage.
Like I said, that was an incredibly quick overview of what
it meant to be a Jew at the time of Christ and I encourage you to look more
deeply into it, but I believe that it’s enough to show you that calling the
Instructions of God “Jewish laws” is a construct which stems from the Jews being
the only ones who claim to follow God’s instructions and not because they belong
to “the Jews”.
Now onto the 2nd sentence…
I promise you that I’m not going to go over every sentence but this next sentence,
I believe, is the reason this organization built around scientific study was
willing to step outside of their
stated objectives[3]
and clarify their view on an interdenominational dispute which does not have to
do with Biblical Authority[4].
The sentence in question is as follows:
Oftentimes, extrabiblical rabbinic
teachings and traditions are elevated (if not in official doctrinal beliefs
then in practice) to the same level as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
As I stated before, I believe that this is the reason that a
science-based organization chose to respond to these decidedly not science-based
accusations. First let me state that in all of my years of study and fraternization
with those in the HRM I have come across a whopping total of ZERO people who would want to elevate rabinnic teachings to the level of Scripture. In fact,
the vast majority of those involved in the HRM that I’ve come across would claim
that the Mishnah and especially the Talmud are worse than the pagan traditions
that have crept into traditional Christianity. So, giving AiG the benefit of the
doubt (that they’ve done even the bare minimum amount of research of asking one
or two people what they thought about things) I have to conclude that the
article’s intent was to refer to The Book
of Enoch. Admittedly, there are a good many people in the HRM (though still
not a majority) who would say that Enoch
should be considered Scripture[5].
It is telling that this article came out directly after an article entitled, The
Book of Enoch and the Flat Earth[6].
Though it can’t be said that this is solely an area explored by those in the
HRM there is a growing percentage of
the HRM who are willing to question the shape of the earth, and cosmology is
most certainly well within the scope of the areas covered by a Christian Science
Ministry like AiG. I’m not going to go over this topic in this writing because
they chose to not mention it as a problem with the HRM. The reason that I bring
it up here is because it is seemingly evident from their lack of mentioning it
that their intent was to undermine the Theological viewpoint of those who have
probably been annoying them with claims that they’re not being Biblical because
they’re not promoting a flat earth model. I won’t deny that a great many (but
certainly not all) of those who
profess to believe in a flat earth can be overzealous and extremely annoying in
their argumentative tone. But it seems underhanded for a Christian Ministry to attack
a foundation without announcing what they’re doing. I hope that I’m wrong about
their motivations in posting this article but the timing of this article coming
after their flat earth article is extremely coincidental.
Before we move into the major points argued in the article I feel that it’s
important to point out one more manipulative trick employed by the author. The
article says, “One writer summarized the HRM in the following way,” but fails
to inform the reader that the following quotation is from another hit-piece on
the HRM which comes from a blog from another Ministry, and yet it’s presented
as if it comes from a scholarly journal. In fact, though AiG tries to separate Messianic
Jews from those in the HRM, and even build up Messianic Jews so that they can knock
the HRM down a little further, this article that they’re using to summarize HRM
lumps HRM and Messianic Jews together. But you won’t see that in the article.
The next point they make is under the heading, “Covenantal Confusion”. Their claim is that the HRM seriously misunderstands
Biblical covenants and that one of the most grievous misunderstandings is “the
notion that “the law” was intended to be binding on all people throughout
history.” And then, after providing 2 verses which many in the HRM will quote
to show why they live the way they do, over the course of the next paragraph, they
throw 8 Bible verses at you (one of them being the same as one used by those in
the HRM) without providing the context of any of those verses, but just making
a point which is not at all backed up. I really don’t want to have to give a
response for every Scripture that they twist but I think that its important in
this instance in order to point out how they’re using the Bible for their own
ends, regardless of what the context of the verse would actually be.
1.Ephesians
2:11-13: These verses are referenced after the article states, “In their
view, this means that the law must still be in force today—even on Gentiles,
although they were not under the law in Old Testament times.” I’m now going to
provide the verses here so that you can see that they actually don’t talk about
what they’re article is talking about.
Therefore remember that you, once
Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the
Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in
Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of
Christ.
These verses do a great deal of
talking to peoples from nations populated mostly by Gentiles and telling them
that while they were once far off from being a part of the commonwealth of
Israel, now because of the blood of Christ when they accepted Him as their Lord
and Savior, they have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. What the
verse does not say is that God’s instructions have been abolished.
I believe that it’s also important here point out that just because these
people didn’t grow up in an area where God’s instructions were being taught doesn’t
mean that once they become a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel they wouldn’t
be expected to live under the constitution of that commonwealth. The Torah,
which God gave to the Israelites through His servant Moses, was quite literally
the constitution of the commonwealth of Israel. If they’re arguing against this
it can only be because of a poor understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how the
citizen of the Kingdom should react to Him to which they have pledged fealty. We
read in Exodus 12:38 that there was a mixed multitude of peoples that left Egypt
with the Israelites, and then we see in verse 49 of that same chapter that the
strangers who were living in the land with them (the mixed multitude) were also
supposed to keep the same law as the Israelites. This could easily be fleshed
out into an entire post in-and-of-itself, but for now we’ll stop here so we can
move onto the next verse in question.
2.Matthew
5:17: Ok, this is the one that was previously referred to when the article
was saying that those in the HRM take a couple of Jesus’s statement out of context.
The article states that those in the HRM “reinterpret” the last part of the
verse, implying that the reinterpretation of the verse is the one in error. Let’s
look at the verse in question:
Do not think that I came to destroy the
Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
This is the verse which the article tries to tell you that those in the HRM are
taking out of context because of the word “fulfill” at the very end of it. We’ll
get to that word in a minute but first we should look at whether the article itself has left this verse
in proper context. If we care to read on, the very next verse says, “For
assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Has heaven and earth
passed away? If you go further, toward the end of the book of Matthew, Jesus appears
to discuss a time when heaven and earth will pass away in the Olivet Discourse
(Matthew 24-25). I don’t think that the argument being made is that the end
times have happened already. Of course, if the eschatology in question is Preterism
then this may actually be a valid argument. But, at that point, this becomes an
eschatological debate instead of the warning against the HRM that we’re being
told that it is.
But let’s look at that word “fulfilled”. Did Jesus fulfill the law? Definitely!
Resoundingly, yes! Nobody, on either side, is denying that. The difference of
opinion comes when we ask what the definition of “fulfill” is. It seems to be
that the definition which would be backed by AiG is that “fulfill” really means
“destroy”. In effect, this interpretation of the word fulfill has Matthew 5:17
saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
not come to abolish them but to abolish them.” I think that if you would like
to seek out a better definition then maybe you could read the verse as, “Do not
think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to
abolish them but to do them.” Is it not possible that Jesus was actually
fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law so that we could see how to
walk out the law as well? Is there anywhere else in Scripture which would indicate
that we should also fulfill the law? Let’s look at Romans 8:3-4.
For what the law could not do in that it
was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Where does Romans 8:4 say that the law would be fulfilled? In us, because we
have the Holy Spirit and are able to walk according to His guidance. Do we get
the impression anywhere else that, because of the Holy Spirit, we should
concern ourselves with the law? What about the very passage of Scripture that
we get the term “New Covenant” from, Jeremiah 31:31-34?
"Behold, the days are coming, says
the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My
covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, says the LORD: I will put My law
in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and
they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every
man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the
least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their
iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."(Emphasis added)
In the New Covenant, is there a law? Are we currently in the New Covenant? If
you don’t believe that we’re in the New Covenant right now then you could make the argument that God’s law has
been done away with. Is this what we’re supposed to believe?
3.2 Corinthians
5:21: This is the next verse mentioned and it is connected in the article to
the statement that Jesus lived a sinless life. This verse reference is
seemingly just thrown into the paragraph to make it look like the article is
standing on more solid ground because of the sheer amount of Scripture
references. Pretty much everyone in the HRM will attest to the fact that Jesus
lived a sinless life. There is no argument on this one. Just so it doesn’t look
like I’m hiding anything, here’s the verse, “For He made Him who knew no sin to
be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
4.1
Corinthians 5:7: The article uses this verse to illustrate that when Jesus
died He was our ultimate Passover sacrifice. I couldn’t agree more! In fact, the
use of this verse does more to go against the article’s intended argument than
it does to help it. Paul was writing to the believers in the city of Corinth. Corinth
is located in modern day Greece, about 25 miles west of Athens. Though there
was a synagogue there, this is definitely not a center for Jewish culture. In
fact, Corinth was one of the most pagan cities in the world of the apostolic
writings and a center for the Imperial Cult (the Roman religion of deifying the
Emperor and worshiping him). The point of saying this is that the members of
the Corinthian church that Paul is writing to would actually have to be
celebrating Passover, and the traditions not necessarily spelled out in the
Bible associated with it, if Paul was expecting that they would get the full
implications of this verse. Moreover, if you move on to the next verse (again,
the article quoted a verse but ripped away its surrounding verses which give it
greater context) you see that Paul is telling the Corinthians to keep the feast.
In this context, this reference to a feast can only be referring to the Feast
of Unleavened Bread. Furthermore, as Bruce Winter points out “Paul’s use of
Passover imagery without needing explication and his reference to the third cup
of win in the Passover meal as ‘the cup of blessing which we bless’ and ‘the
bread which we break’ again without explanation suggests that all the
congregation was well aware of the Passover precedent for the Lord’s supper
(5:7 and 10:16).[7]” Paul’s
reference to Passover implies that they are not only keeping the Feasts of the
LORD (though there’s no reason to suspect that this body of believers kept them
before their accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior), but that it is an
unspoken implication leads you to believe that it was a necessity.
5.Colossians
2:14: First I’m just going to show the verse: “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,
which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it
to the cross.” Presented the way it is in the article by the author saying,
“Jesus Christ fulfilled the law,” concerning this verse, you’re meant think
that (again) 'fulfilled' means abolished. We’ve already gone over that one so the
verse is not saying that Jesus Christ did away with the law. So, if that’s not what
it’s saying what is it saying? When
we read, “the handwriting of requirements that was against us,” we have to look
to what this phrase would’ve meant at the time of its writing. The commentary
for this verse in the Cultural Backgrounds
Study Bible[8]reads as follows,
“Language such as this was used for handwritten
notes, usually certificates of debt. Jewish tradition also portrayed sins as “debts”
before God; they came to believe that these were canceled on the Day of
Atonement. Another Greek term in this phrase was often used for Gods law as His
decrees (…); decrees were often posted in public locations.”
While the article’s presentation of this verse would make you think that those
in the HRM would have a problem with this verse, again, this couldn’t be
further from the truth. Jesus came to the earth to cancel the debt that was
being held against us. The fact that He nailed them to the cross, in a very
public nature, was all the notice the devil needed to see that those debts had
been paid. That these slaves had been redeemed.
Think about it like a modern-day court case. You were caught speeding and
brought before the judge. You know that you were speeding. The police officer
was totally within his right to pull you over. You go before the judge and he
finds you guilty and hands down a $300 fine for speeding. You are now under
that law. You go to the magistrate to pay your fine and when you get there you’re
told that the judge actually personally paid your fine. The judge fulfilled the
end of that law for you. Does this mean that you should go out and drive too
fast again? Or, as I show of thanks to the judge, should you attempt to stay
within the speed limit?
6.Romans 6:14:
Alright, let’s just start out by quoting the verse.
For sin will have no dominion over you,
since you are not under law but under grace.
I want start by saying that, to me, this verse and the surrounding verses are
some of the most exciting verses in the entire Bible, but that’s a different
thought for a different time.. As we should always do, let’s look at the
context of the verse in regards to the verses around it. Romans 6:1-2 (I think
we can agree that these 2 verses are connected) reads as follows, “What shall
we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How
can we who died to sin still live in it?” What exactly is sin, anyway? I grew up being told that sin is “missing the mark”.
I think this is a good answer, but it doesn’t really tell us what it is to hit the mark. There is a Bible verse that tells us exactly what sin is so why don’t we
go to 1 John 3:4.
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning
also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
The old King James even says it like this, “sin is transgression of the law.” With
this in mind, let’s look at Romans 6:1-2 again. Another way that it could be read
is, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue transgressing the law that
grace may abound? By no means! How can we who have been freed from the transgression
of the law continue to transgress the law?” Now, admittedly, that’s my
paraphrase, but I think that it fits fairly well there. What would Romans 6:14
look like if we applied the same outlook? “For transgression of the law will
have no dominion of you, since you are not under law but under grace.” Much
like the illustration for the last verse, the Judge has shown us grace and paid
our fine. Why would we continue in sin?
7.Romans 7:4:
This verse is 13 verses after the last example. This is quite literally the
exact same example just thrown in to make the list look bigger. But, if you
want to treat it differently we will. If you read another 3 verses on you will
find out that the law is not sin but it is the means by which you know sin. If the law tells you not do something,
doing that something would be sin. But, again, so that it can’t be said that I was
doing what the article has done and name verses without having shown them, let’s
look at the verse in question, “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to
the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.”
8.Galatians
5:18: Finally, they bring up Galatians. I’m surprised it took this long to
get here…
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are
not under the law.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this verse. I now have the Holy Spirit and the
law is written on my heart (New Covenant) so I am no longer under the law. So
long as I can walk in the Spirit then the law will not be coming down on me. Let’s
try another illustration. When somebody has you under their thumb they have you
pinned down and you’re caught. If somebody comes along and lifts that thumb off
of you that doesn’t mean that the thumb no longer exists. We don’t live in
world devoid of thumbs, we have the Holy Spirit inside of us and He shows us
how to walk in a way that we can avoid the thumbs out there trying to fall on
us.
Alright, we’re finally done going over those verses. I hope
that you noticed how a few of them were just filler and didn’t really have
anything to do with the overall argument. Or, they made the HRM point instead
of the intended point. I’m going to speed up my response now that I’ve shown
that the article cherry picks its verses and purposely left the context out
so that you wouldn’t ask questions.
We next see that the Ministry which built a life size version of Noah’s Ark,
give the worst use of the Ark to try to explain something ever. Or at least
since the time of the Ark. The argument in the article is that since God gave
Noah a command to build an Ark, all of those in the HRM are being hypocritical
of they don’t also build Arks. This is followed up in the article by the
statement,
The HRM followers I have spoken to
about this typically reply that those commands were given to a specific person
for a specific time, and they are correct. But if that reason is strong enough
to avoid following such commandments, why does it not hold true when it comes
to the Mosaic law? After all, the Mosaic law was given to a specific group of
people at a specific time. The Bible spells out this fact at the initiation of
this covenant and again 40 years later when the Israelites prepared to enter
the land God promised to them.
This is honestly one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen. First of all, there’s
legitimate reason to believe that the law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai had been
in place before the Exodus, but we’ll do our best to end this one quickly
without bringing that up[9].
Is it possible that the command for Noah to build the Ark was a one time
command and that the instructions handed down to the Israelites through Moses
were meant for all time? Let’s look at it a little closer. Why did God tell
Noah to build an Ark? He told him build the Ark because a very specific thing
was about to happen. In fact, this is a thing that we’re told will never happen
again. There was going to be global flood. If God tells you to build an Ark
because the world is going to flood, then build it.
But what about the “Mosaic law”? First of all, just because you call it the Mosaic
law doesn’t mean that’s what it is. I just looked it up and that term does not
ever occur in the Bible. It’s not Moses’s law, it’s God’s law. I feel that by
ascribing it to someone who is not God, it’s easier to cheapen it and say that it
doesn’t matter anymore. But, to answer the question, let’s look at a few places
in the Torah where the law is given.
Exodus 12:17: So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this
same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your
generations as an everlasting ordinance.
Exodus 30:1: "And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'This
shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout
your generations.
Exodus 31:13: "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: 'Surely My
Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you
may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
Numbers 15:14: And if a stranger dwells
with you, or whoever is among you throughout
your generations, and would present an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma
to the LORD, just as you do, so shall he
do.
There are quit a bit more of those but I think that should be enough to prove
the point that the reason that it may be logical to think that the “Mosaic law”
may last longer than just one specific people and time is that we (yes, “we”, that last
verse makes that one a little more clear) were told to do these things throughout your generations.
There are a few other things mentioned under “Covenantal Confusion” and I can go
into them in the future if you want to but I’m already running long here so let’s
move on to the next section.
Did the Apostles
Believe That Gentiles Should Follow the Mosaic Law?
Again with the whole “Mosaic law” thing… Oh well, I’ll move on from it.
Here the article spends a good bit of time going over Acts 15. It’s really the
same verses that are brought up every time anyone questions a Torah pursuant
follower of Jesus. There are literally hundreds of websites out there that will
explain this one for you but I’ll do my best to cover it quickly. In Acts 15 we
have what is called the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles debated over
what restrictions to place upon the converts who had once been Gentiles. Back
in the 1st century there was a large debate among the different sects
of the Jewish faith over what converts needed to do before they were allowed to
become proselyte (a gentile who officially wanted to enter into worship of the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). This debate naturally spilled over into the
Jewish believers of the time, as the early church was largely made up of Jewish
converts. I’ll post a good video to watch on the subject below. It’ll take
20-25 minutes but I think it’ll be well worth your time.
The AiG article plays down that after giving all of the
instructions about what the gentiles should first do (Acts 15:19-20) it directly
goes into saying that Moses has been taught in every city (Acts 15:21). The
author says, “one HRM follower told me that this verse meant that the Gentiles
would go to the synagogues in those cities to learn about following the law.
But that is not even close to what James said.” The only problem with this is
that this is precisely what the text says. You can’t make it not say that just
because you tell people it doesn’t say that. Let’s look at the actual verses.
Therefore my judgment is that we
should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to
them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality,
and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations
Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every
Sabbath in the synagogues." (Acts 15:19-21)
The author contends that the reason that last verse is
mentioned is just to say that there are Jews there and we don’t want to the new
Christians to offend the Jews. There is literally no reason to actually think
that unless it’s because you don’t have a good response. If it was only about
not offending the Jews, there would need to be no mention made of Moses or the
synagogues and it might say something about offending the Jews.
Do the New Testament Epistles Teach That
Gentiles Should Follow the Mosaic Law?
This section of the article basically says, “go read Galatians,” and then goes
on to quote various verses in the book of Galatians. I’m not going to go into
them as I’ve already shown that the context of the quoted verses is not always
up to snuff. What I will do right
here is quote another Bible verse. Peter is the author of 2 books in the Bible.
1 Peter is addressed to believers in Galatia, among other places in Asia Minor.
2 Peter is not publicly addressed to any church in particular but the scholarly consensus
is that, like 1 Peter, 2 Peter is also addressed to churches in Asia Minor.
Keeping in mind that Peter is most probably writing to the same church in Galatia
that Paul wrote the book of Galatians to, let’s look at the closing of that
book.
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting
for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at
peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved
brother Paul also wrote to you according
to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in
them of these matters. There are some
things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this
beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless
people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day
of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:14-18) (Emphasis Added)
So, before you read the book of Galatians (and you should
read it because it really is a great book) make sure you read this portion of 2
Peter and take heed of Peter’s advice. I honestly don’t think that I need to
add anything more. The Apostle Peter probably knew what he was talking about.
There’s something else that I want to add concerning this article. It keeps
referring to “gentile believers”. I would like to posit that there is no such
thing as a gentile believer. The word gentile come from the Hebrew term ‘goy’,
and they at the most basic level mean “out of covenant”. If you are an out of
covenant believer in Jesus then I think you have bigger problems than whether
or not you should be struggling over questions of the law. Get yourself right with Jesus. Start
a relationship with Him and get into covenant with Him.
I’m going to choose to just not bother responding to the foods portion of the
article. By and large every food instruction God gave has been shown to have
been a good idea for health reasons. Surprisingly the article doesn’t even
bring up Acts 10 in regard to food, but that may be because the traditional
view that Peter’s vision is about food has become indefensible since the
interpretation of the vision is given a couple times throughout the book of Acts
and it has nothing to do with food when the interpretation is given. Any interpretation incorporating food would
then be of private interpretation and we know that is not allowable
(1 Peter 1:20).
Special Days
This is a place where I want to give some credence to what the article is
saying. In the article it is stated that AiG gets hundreds of messages every
Christmas from people in the HRM who castigate the ministry for talking about
Christmas using it to point people toward Jesus. I fully believe this and I
want to call it out as wrong. I personally don’t celebrate Christmas but that
does not give me the license to make anyone else feel like any less of a
Christian because they do celebrate it. Plus, as is mentioned in the article, much of the
reason for people calling it pagan is because of shoddy scholarship. If you’re
doing any research and you see Alexander Hislop in the cited sources, just run
away. You’re probably dealing with some bad info. We, as ambassadors of the
King, need to make sure that our sources are above reproach, and this has been
an issue in the HRM. But, let’s not pretend that this is solely an HRM thing. I
heard all of these things long before I ever heard anyone in the HRM talk about
them. And, for what it’s worth, Alexander Hislop was never a member of the HRM.
He was just a man who really hated
the Catholic church.
As far as Easter, if you want to celebrate “Resurrection
Sunday”, more power to you! But why wouldn’t you just celebrate the Festivals
God spelled out in the Bible which actually are symbolic of the very things the
traditional Christian days are meant to honor. If you’re Christian and you don’t
honor the Feasts of the LORD my only question would be… why not?
Honestly, God said
He had some days He thought were significant; why wouldn’t you want to celebrate
them? If you want to learn more about them you can find a lot of information in
Leviticus 23 (I know, not Leviticus, right…) and also in Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy
16. In fact, there’s one coming up in like a week. It’s called Passover and there
are so many beautiful ways to celebrate Jesus during it. Don’t feel like you
have to, just read about it and see if you want to. See if you can find the
heart of Jesus in it.
Final Considerations
This AiG article has been full of errors and misrepresentations of the HRM, but
I honestly believe that their heart is in the right place. They’ve just been
unwilling to listen to the counterarguments which have come from most of the
HRM community. Are there some bad eggs? You’re geegolly right there are! And
unfortunately, like pretty much everything else, the crazies are the most vocal.
But that’s not most of us. I go to a Bible study every week that is made up
entirely of people who are not Torah Pursuant (except for myself and my fiancé),
and we have more in common than we have differences. We have an awesome fellowship
every week and we celebrate our differences and we celebrate our being one in
Christ.
The danger in posting an article like this which just throws a huge blanket over
an entire ‘denomination’ is that AiG has many supporters all over the world
(including a great many in the HRM) and with this article you now have told you
supporters that they should disregard anyone who is in any way Messianic. You can
say that’s not what you were doing but you know
that’s what the reaction will be. My hope in all this is only that you will be
open to hearing the other side. That’s not totally true, my greater hope is
that you’ll think better of having that deceitful and misrepresentative article
posted and take it down, but I’d be willing to settle for an apology to all of
those who you’ve wrongfully cast shade upon.
I’ll leave you something that Jesus once said…
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the
least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[4] It’s
somewhat strange that one of the areas AiG claim that they will involve themselves in is the nature of the Trinity, and yet
they didn’t really touch on this topic even though there are definitely some in
the HRM who would not claim a belief in the traditional view of the Trinity. I
would say that they made this decision because those in question are a fraction
of the movement, but the original article makes blanket statements about the
whole movement concerning things which are claimed by an even smaller portion
of the community (for example, those who would elevate rabbinic writings to the
level of Scripture.)
[5] It
should be noted that this is far from a view held solely by those who would be
considered part of the HRM. There’s a growing number of people who would say
that they are interested in “Fringe Christianity” (largely encompassing, but
not limited to, study of the Nephilim) who would also say that there’s an argument
to be made that Enoch should be considered
Scripture.
[7] Bruce
W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The
Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Cambridge, UK: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 2001, 157.
[8] NKJV
Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2017, 2160
[9] Just
a couple arguments in favor of a pre-Exodus law would be that Cain and Abel
were making sacrifices to the LORD and they new how to do it. And, when God
told Noah to gather 2 of each unclean animal and 7 of each clean animal
(probably so there were more clean animals to sacrifice), Noah didn’t have to
ask God, “what’s a clean animal?” And God didn’t have to answer “I’ll tell your
ancestors in a couple thousand years…”
