💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › fischer.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:29:56.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The following is a transcription of a lecture by Dr. John Fischer.
The text is copyrighted by Dr. Fischer. It is intended that the
material be freely circulated and may be duplicated, but it may not
published without express, written permission of Dr. John Fischer,
Messianic Rabbi of Congregation Or Chadash, P.O.B. 669,
Clearwater, Florida.
Messianic Judaism:
Beautiful Heritage or Biblical Heresy
by Dr. John Fisher
It would be appropriate to say, since we at are the conference, "Boker
Tov." For those of you for whom that phrase is somewhat unfamiliar,
you've probably already figured out what that means, but for whom that
phrase is unfamiliar, let me give you a bit of a motivation. My wife is
seminary professor and presently she is teaching a summer course in
Hebrew at the seminary where we teach part time. And she has a motto.
She says, "Learn Hebrew now and avoid the rush when Yeshua returns." So,
for those of you for whom "boker tov" was speaking in an unknown tongue,
be alerted, and motivated.
But let's begin by talking to God.
Thank You Father for the opportunity to be here over the course of this
weekend. Thank You for the things that unite us. But thank You most of
all for Yeshua, our Messiah, who has brought us into a relationship with
You, and given us a family status with the God of the Universe. Thank
You that we are all part of the same family. And that our concerns are
common concerns. And thank You, too, that You have given us Your word
to instruct us as to how we should live, how we should behave, and we
should speak. And we would ask that as we look through Your word this
morning that we would be receptive to the prodding of the Spirit of God
whom You've given as our teacher. And we will thank You for the way in
which You work in our lives, and the way in which You will change our
lives as a result of our interaction with Your word. Thank You, in
Yeshua's name, Amen.
OK. The title given to this session was "Messianic Judaism: Beautiful
Heritage or Biblical Heresy".
During the course of the last decade or better, most of us have been
excited about the rise of Messianic Synagogues and fellowships. About
the rediscovery of our Jewish roots and about the richness and the
beauty of a Messianic Jewish lifestyle. Others are intrigued and are
interested and still others question and criticize. What about their
objections?
Is Messianic Judaism just a fascinating experience or is it grounded
firmly on the Bible? It's that I want to look at with you with all the
ramifications and implications this morning, at least in survey fashion.
We start with a pattern for Messianic Judaism. Some of this material
may be familiar to you, some I trust you will find unfamiliar and we
will learn together.
PATTERN OF MESSIANIC JUDAISM
The pattern for Messianic Judaism obviously goes all the way back to
Yeshua himself. It is there that we will set the pattern, we will look
at his life and we will look at his teachings.
When you look at his life, and I will try to throw these references out
to you slowly enough so that you can look them up later, we won't look
them up now for the sake of time.
But if you look at his life in Luke chapter 2:21-24, the very beginning
of his life, what occurs? According to the traditions that he was to be
raised in, at infancy his family would take him to the temple, he was
circumcised the eighth day (brit milah), and then the offering is made
for the redemption of the first born (pidyon haben). From the very
beginning, as his life begins, he goes through all of the customs and
traditions of his people.
As He grows up this continues, you get to Luke chapter 2:41-49, and you
will recall the scene there: it's that very familiar story, where he is
brought by his mother (Miriam) and his father (Joseph) to the city of
Jerusalem to do what? To celebrate the holiday. This is appropriate
because we are told to celebrate these holidays in Jerusalem. They go
home, you remember the scene, and sometime later they do sort of a
survey of the family to make sure everyone's there and find Yeshua
missing, so of course they return to Jerusalem, and you remember they
find him in the Temple, asking questions; and we have a specific
connotation associated with that; but perhaps we miss something of
what's going on.
The asking of questions, particularly as phrased in that particular
situation was indicative of a person who was functioning as a Rabbinic
student, a student of the Rabbis, it was the role of the student of the
Rabbis, to ask questions of the Rabbis. He was fulfilling the role of a
typical Rabbinic student.
When you get to Yeshua's adult life in Luke chapter 4:14 or 15 it was
his custom to be in the synagogues; that doesn't surprise us. He goes
into the synagogue, he reads from the scroll of Isaiah as part of the
synagogue service and then he comments on it; he is involved in the
traditional synagogue service of His day.
Now by the way there's a hint here that often we miss, what was the
primary reading that was often done in the synagogue? "Torah". He was
reading from Isaiah, what was he reading? "Haf Torah". Now when he's
reading from Haf Torah, that should tell you something loud and clear,
that he is following the traditional cycle of lexical readings, Sedra
and Haf Torah, so he is fully functional in the synagogue. And we see
in his own lifestyle, the lifestyle that was established for him by his
parents; for example when you get to the gospel written by Yochanan
haShliach (John The Apostle), chapter 7, he goes to Jerusalem to
celebrate the feast, this time it's the feast of Sukkot.
If you read in the gospel written by Levi haShliach (Matthew the
Apostle), Matthew 26, he goes to celebrate Passover (Pesach). If you
read the gospel again written by Yochanan haShliach chapter 10:22 and
following you'll recall that he's in the temple during what, "The Feast
Of Dedication", and if your bible has a footnote it says "in other words
Chanukah." He's celebrating the holidays, the major ones as well as the
so called minor ones.
You see further in his lifestyle in that very interesting incident where
the woman reaches out to touch, the what, "the hem of his garment," is
the way it's usually translated, a good bible will note for you that it
is tzit-tzit, he wears the "tzit-tzit". And in fact his lifestyle is so
consistent that he can make this rather incredible challenge, this time
in Yochanan's Gospel chapter 8 verse 46. Before him stands a group of
people including the religious leaders. And he says, who among you can
accuse me of any wrong? Who among you can accuse me of any wrong, and
no one, neither people or religious leaders can say "Wait a second, you
didn't do this, or you didn't do that." And of course, the same scene in
a larger sense is repeated before the Sanhedrin, as Mark records it for
us in Mark chapter 14:55-56. You'll recall that the high priest and his
party; by the way who was the party of the high priest? Sadducees.
They tried to come up with a series of accusations whereby they could
condemn Yeshua, and they bring in all sorts of people that they pay,
they still can't get them to agree. Why? Because, they could find
nothing wrong with his life. He says before "who among you can accuse
me of any wrong?"
We find the same things reflected in his teachings. Now, I am going to
leave you with a couple teachings that you may find hard to swallow, I
am not going to exegete them for you as to their implication, that's
part of another time and another place perhaps. But, here's what he
says, Luke chapter 18 verses 18 and following. The young man comes to
Yeshua and says, "Master what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And he
says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Not
quite! He says, what do you read in the Torah, have you observed the
commandments? That's his response! Now there is a way to understand
what he is saying and how it relates to what we call salvation by grace,
but, that is his response and we need to take it seriously. And then he
says to his own followers, again recorded by Levi haShliach, (Matthew 23
verses 2-3), that's an easy one to remember. He says, and here's what
he said, "Whatever the Pharisees teach, whatever they teach, that do!"
Now that's what He said. Now you remember who the Pharisees are, among
the strictest of the Jewish groups of the first century, not the
strictest, but pretty close to it.
TEACHING OF MESSIANIC JUDAISM
His teachings are consistent with his lifestyle. So much so that a
number of modern Jewish scholars, I will quote a couple for you, have
reflected on Yeshua's life and teachings and have said the following.
First one comes from David Flusser, his book Jesus, he is the head of
the Department of Comparative Religions at Hebrew University, and a
recognized scholar in the field. He said, and I quote here, "As a Jew",
talking about Yeshua, "he fully accepted the Law. The community that he
founded, comparable in some ways to the Essenes", that was the most
strict of the groupings in the first century, "saw itself as a movement
of reform and fulfillment within Judaism, not as a cessation
[??secession?] from it". Or to quote from the Orthodox Israeli scholar,
presently on loan to a German university, Pincas Lapide. He said and I
quote, "In this respect you must believe me, for I do know my Talmud,
more or less. This Jesus was as faithful to the Law as I would hope to
be, but I suspect that Jesus was more faithful to the Law than I am, and
I am an Orthodox Jew".
All right, now when he says "Law," he's saying "Law through the eyes of
Talmud," as he already indicated. And that's his assessment. "More
faithful to the Law than I am, and I am an Orthodox Jew." That's Yeshua
and the pattern he set.
PATTERN OF PRACTICE IN MESSIANIC JUDAISM
Now there is another pattern that we need to follow, and that is of the
great rabbi from Tarsus, Rav Shaul, because he is viewed, and
appropriately so, as perhaps the foremost interpreter of Yeshua and His
teachings.
Once again we'll look at his life. We'll look at his defense of his
life. And we'll look at his teachings. In his life, if you look at the
historical record of Acts 20:56, Rav Shaul arrives in Jerusalem to
celebrate the holiday Pesach. Verse 16, same chapter, he returns to
Jerusalem to celebrate the holiday Shavuot. He's following the
instructions of where and when we celebrate. One passage that is often
missed, Acts 27:9, he's on that pleasure cruise (some of you remember
the story, chapter 27 verse 9 - it gets a little windy) in the middle of
all that Luke observes for us, and we miss it unless we are reading it
through cultural eyes, he observed the fast. What fast? Yom Kippur.
OK, even though he is about to be shipwrecked, he's observing the
fast. Chapter 18 verse 18 he arrives in Jerusalem. He shaves his head
because he had taken a vow (some more of our customs and traditions).
Acts chapter 21, which we'll come back to in a minute, chapter 21 verses
24 to 26 he goes along with some people who have made a vow and with
them purifies himself (more of our customs and traditions) and offers
the appropriate sacrifice (more of our customs and traditions).
Further in his life, as he reflects back on it, 2 Corinthians chapter 11
verse 24, we miss something again if we're not reading carefully. He
says five times (I think I've counted that right) "I received from the
hands of the Jewish leaders 40 stripes minus 1." For those of you for
whom arithmetic is a little slow Sunday morning after a whole conference
that's 39. What does that mean? That's part of traditional synagogue
discipline. He submitted himself to traditional synagogue discipline.
He did not have to; he chose to. How do we know he didn't have to? How
many times did he get away from Roman punishment by exercising his
privileges as a Roman citizen? He could have called on that again, had
he chose to. He chose to submit himself to synagogue discipline.
Now let's get back to that situation in Acts chapter 21. But let's take
it all the way back to the beginning of the passage. Verse 20 begins the
paragraph. Let me sketch for you what is loosely speaking a Fisher
paraphrase of the text at this point. Rav Shaul arrives in Jerusalem.
He is greeted there by Ya'akov haShliach, the brother of Yeshua, James.
And Ya'akov says to him this, he says "There's a rumor going around (you
might say around town) that you're teaching other Jews, particularly
Messianic Jews, to abandon the customs and traditions." Read the text.
That is what he is saying. He says, "Here is how we can quell that
rumor. Here's how we can stamp out this untruth." He says, "Take these
people who have made a vow. Go together with them. Pay for their
purification and their vow, and bring the appropriate sacrifice and you
will demonstrate to all concerned that you're leading a consistent,
traditional Jewish life." And what does Rav Shaul say, "No you haven't
read my book Galatians!" He raises the flag, not "Remember the Alamo",
"Remember Acts 15!." This is the same person now.
He does exactly what Ya'akov suggests. Why? To demonstrate exactly
what he said it would demonstrate, that he was living a consistent,
Godly Jewish life, and teaching others to do the same. And, if his life
isn't sufficient, let's hear his words, his defense. Four passages,
crucial passages, chapter 25 verse 8, he is now before a Roman court.
(I forget whether it is Festus or Felix or somebody whose name begins
with an "F") and he says, "Here is my defense. I have done nothing
wrong against Caesar, the Temple, or the Laws of the Jews! I haven't
transgressed civil law. I haven't transgressed religious law. I
haven't transgressed ceremonial law. That's my defense!" Was he lying?
If we didn't get the point yet, and this almost the closing paragraph of
the book of Acts, chapter 28 verse 17. He stands now before the Jewish
religious leaders in Rome and he says, "I'm going to present my defense
to you, also." He says, "I have not transgressed the customs (and that's
the term he uses if you look it up) the customs of the fathers." Not the
Torah. Not the Temple. But the customs, the traditions. He says, "I
have not transgressed them." That's what he said, very close to the end
of his life. And if that's not sufficient, then for some maybe that's
not sufficient.
Two defences related to the Sanhedrin again, [Acts] chapter 23 verse 26.
He says "You know who I am, I used to be a Pharisee!" Is that what he
says? He says "I stand before you now because I am a Pharisee!" Wait a
second Rav Shaul, you forgot to read Galatians. Didn't you set all that
behind you? Isn't that what you said in Philippians? Obviously not
since he wrote those books. He says, I am a Pharisee, by the way in
case you think that was a slip of the tongue, chapter 26 verse 5. He
says "These men have known my manner of life, that I have lived
consistently as a Pharisee." "Have lived", is a very particular
construction, it means "that's the way I used to live and am living now.
That's how I lived". His teachings support exactly his defense. What
does he say, chapter 26 verse 22, a little later in his defense, "I
teach nothing but what Moses and the Prophets teach." Oh, another words,
[??in other words??] he teaches Genesis through Deuteronomy; now
remember the prophets begin where, not with Isaiah but with Joshua. Of
course that means he didn't teach the writings, right? Obviously not!
Now when you're teaching this book in the context of the first century,
as those who heard him would have understood, that implied also the
understanding of this book in the first century. I'll leave you to
dwell on that (nothing but what Moses and the Prophets teach).
Romans chapter 3 verse 31, he says, "by faith do we nullify or set aside
the Law", (of course he says, is that what he says, that's right you
missed a word), "Of course not, we establish the Law". Should that
surprise you, no, not if you've read Ezekiel chapter 36 verse 25-27, you
know that's the famous passage where GOD promises, "I will pour
clean water on you, I'll purify you from your sins, I'll send my spirit
to invade your lives." Why is the spirit going to come; (so that the we
can all say,
"Free from the Law,
oh happy condition.
I can sin as I want
and still have remission".
I didn't make that make that up by the way, I am quoting that). No, he
says, the spirit has come to do what, "so that you will walk according
to my statutes and my ordinances." That's exactly what Rav Shaul is
saying. Romans chapter 7, he says concerning the Law, it is unholy,
unfair and totally evil; is that what he says, no, "it's holy and just
and good", that's what he teaches. By the way, he does not stand alone,
if you look at the lives of the Shlechim (the Apostles), you find the
same thing.
Ya'akov once again; Josephus the first century historian records for us
the martyrdom of Ya'akov. He had gotten the high priests upset for some
reason or another, and if you something about the history of
the high priesthood at that time you could understand why someone would
get the high priest upset. So the high priest said "We'll get rid of
him," they threw him over the temple wall. The Pharisees were so
incensed at what happened to Ya'akov, they sent a delegation to Rome and
had the high priest removed. That's the reputation he had among the
Pharisees. In fact, Tegasipis, second century historian, says
concerning Ya'akov, "he was loyal practicing Jew, a Tzadic."
How about the rest of them, well, let's look at their practice, talking
about the Shelchim, the others, their practice of Judaism
first of all. Here's a passage that you've read I don't know how many
countless times. It's that first resurrection message preached during
Shavuot by Shimon, although most people say it was preached at Pentecost
by Peter, but we will straighten that out sometime later. Although, if
you get a copy of my good friend David Stern's Jewish New Testament, it
will have been straightened out for you already. Three thousand people
respond, remember every last one of them Jewish, and then it tells us
beginning around verse 41-42, what these people used as their follow up
program or the discipleship series, pick one. They continued what, in
prayer, no, the apostles doctrine, prayer, fellowship, and breaking of
bread. So we read it, read it more carefully, it did not say that they
continued in prayer. Heresy! They didn't pray? No, it says they
continued in, "THE", definite article, "PRAYERS" plural. In the first
century what do "the prayers" mean? The prayer book, the Sidur, or at
least the pre- Sidur. In other words they continued in the Synagogue
service and with the Synagogue liturgy. I know Liturgy is a nasty term.
I can't help it, they did it. Oh by the way, I know I am going to get
into trouble for saying this but I might as well do it at the beginning.
For any of you who think that the Liturgy cannot be spirit filled, you
have got a bone to pick with these people. Unless of course, they were
not spirit filled. Lets continue before we get into more hot water. It
continues, Acts 2 Verse 46, (we stop reading usually at verse 44 or 45),
they continue to meet regularly at the temple, (to play ping-pong)? No,
nor Bingo, although, we do have Synagogue down the street from us that
is the major Bingo house in our area. Hey, we learned from the
Catholics, what can we say! Actually, in our community it is a service
to the senior citizens so I don't want to mock it too profoundly.
Acts chapter 3 verse 1, Shimon and Yochanan go up to the temple to do
what, to pray, during the hour of prayer, during the set services, they
continue in these things. Oh, there is sort of a hint at the basic
lifestyle too of the Shlechim, you find it in Acts chapter 20 verses
7-12, interesting story. Rav Shaul arrives in town, he's preaching
during the first day of the week, and he preaches, and he preaches, and
he preaches, and this poor guy Eutychus, he falls out of the window at
midnight. Hey I mean the guy had been going since 10 in the morning,
right? That's a long sermon. When is the first day in the week in the
Jewish calendar? SUNDAY? No! SATURDAY NIGHT. Now granted if he
started right at the crack of the first day, he had been preaching since
6, 7, 8 o'clock, that's a long sermon as it is, but it wasn't from 10 in
the morning. They observed Shabbat, and had their services after the
Shabbat services in the temple. How do we know that they weren't Sunday
morning? They were at work Sunday morning, as history tells us. OK, so
they continued in the customs, that's reflected there as well.
Remember Acts 15, too. By the way, remember the reason for it all?
Chapter 15, the thought was current that if a gentile wanted to be a
true follower of Yeshua the Messiah, he had to become a Jew first, or
she had to become a Jew first, go through the whole process; by the way
when you read circumcision please remember culturally circumcision was
what, the sign that you had formally become a Jew, no longer a Gentile,
it wasn't just a medical process. So they were saying, you want to be
true followers of Yeshua the Messiah, and you could see the logic behind
this, you've got to become Jewish. That was always GOD's way. It was
always the way for Gentiles to become part of the Jewish commonwealth,
the nation of Israel, so that they could become part of the promises of
GOD. Obviously, they had missed some of the passages that had indicated
that GOD would reach out to Gentiles as Gentiles, and that was corrected
at this council. But that's how Jewish this whole thing was in the
beginning. Some of us have already understood that, but some of us
forget verses 20 and 21. Or again we read too quickly, verse 20 he says,
Ya'akov now representing the whole group, call it the Messianic
Sanhedrin for lack of a better term. He says, "Here's what we expect the
Gentiles to do, not to become Jews, but to abstain from certain things."
And the translations differ a little here and there. But the key thing
is, cross-reference that with Genesis 9, this is a repetition of the
Noahide commandments. What do the Rabbis tell us about the Noahide
commandments. This is what's expected of Gentiles. He's referring to a
specific Jewish tradition, what's expected of Gentiles, we know what's
expected of Gentiles, the Noahide commandments. And something else he
says in Acts 15 verse 21, if you read it carefully, and the implication
behind it is subtle, but it's there. He says, "After all we don't need
anything more because Moses is taught in the Synagogues."
(Ya'akov that's irrelevant!) No it wasn't for him, why, he understood
that follow-up would take place in the Synagogues, why, where are you
going to get Bible teaching in those days? In the Synagogue, think
about that. Their practice of Judaism, next their position in Judaism.
POSITION OF JUDAISM IN MESSIANIC JUDAISM
For this we do some historical work. There's a gentleman by the name of
Irenaeus, he lived in the second century. He was unique because
his teacher, Polycarp, had been taught by the apostle Yochanan. OK, so
he knew something about the Shlechim (the Apostles). And here's what
Irenaeus says, and I quote verbatim, he's talking about the Shlechim,
"but they themselves continued in the ancient observances, thus did the
apostles scrupulously", (that's his term), "act according to the
dispensation of the Mosaic Law." That's what Yochanan had taught his
teacher, who had in turn taught Irenaeus. Wait a second, hadn't you
read Galatians, and Romans, and Hebrews? By the way when he says,
dispensation of the Mosaic Law, he's not the first of the
dispensationalists--for those of you who are theologically inclined or
attuned. But he is saying they lived consistent Jewish lives. This has
been recognized by many people, for example quoting now from Issador
Epistine in his book "Judaism", which if it's still in print is an
excellent book to get, concerning these people he said, "the earliest
adherents regarded Jesus", (you'll have to pardon him, he uses the term
Jesus), "as the Messiah...They made no other changes, they continued to
go to the Temple and the synagogue as they had been accustomed to do.
They conformed in every respect to the usual Jewish observances." This
is a Jewish scholar. He would have an ax to grind, if he wanted to
grind it. Others have.
Testimony of the shlechim. I'm now referring to Ya'akov Yoach, who a
couple of years ago passed on. He was, well, perhaps a prototype of
Messianic Jews. He was a believer. In his book, "The Jewish People and
Jesus Christ", he has noted for us that according to Jewish tradition,
Shimon Ha'Shliach (Peter the Apostle) is the author of one of the
Shabbat prayers, a poetic section of the Yom Kippur liturgy, plus other
pieces of our liturgy. I said, "Hey, that's interesting." Then I did a
little more work in preparation for this week. (Sometimes I do some
work in preparation for these talks.) And I decided which one [??of] the
Shabbat prayers, according to Jewish tradition, did he write. And to my
amazement, I discovered that it was my favorite. It is the one which
begins "Nish mat kol chi..--Every living thing that has breath will
praise You." And then two paragraphs later it goes into that beautiful
section:
"To You alone we give thanks. Were our mouths full of
songs as the sea and our tongues full of praise as its
many waves and our lips full of thanks as the wide
expanse of the skies, were our eyes shining with light
like the sun and the moon, and our hands were spread
forth like the wings of eagles, and our feet were as swift
as the wild deer, we would still be usable to thank you
and praise your name, oh Lord our God and God of our
fathers for one thousandth or one ten thousandth a part
of the bounties you have bestowed on our father and on
us."
You couldn't express it more beautifully. It's part of our liturgy.
Shimon wrote it. OK?
Oh, by the way, there are some reflections far later on the lives of the
followers of the shlechim, the early Messianic Jews. This quote comes
from Epithanius, he writes around the year 400, and I'm going to give
you the whole quote because it's good. "We shall now especially
consider Nazarenes. (That's how Messianic Jews were known the first
century.) They are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only
of the New Testament, but also, in a way, the Old Testament of the Jews.
For they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings. So they are approved of by the Jews." Now you may have heard
other things as to relationships of Messianic Jews and Jews, but this a
direct quote from late in the fourth century. "So that they are
approved of by the Jews from whom the Nazarenes do not differ in
anything, and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the
prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except that
they believe" --you'll pardon him for his terminology-- "in Christ. They
preach that there is but one God and His son, Jesus Christ. But they
are very learned in the Hebrew language. For they, like the Jews, read
the whole law and then they read the prophets." Think again culturally.
What does that mean? They're following the Sedra-Haftorah lexical cycle
of the synagogue readings. "They differ from the Jews because they
believe in Christ, and from the Christians in that they are to this day
bound to the Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath and other
ceremonies."
By the way, back to Irenaeus, a century before, or century and a half
before, reflecting now on the lives of the followers, "They practise
circumcision, persevere in those customs which are enjoined by the Law
and are so Judaic in their mode of life that they even adore
Jerusalem as though it were the house of God." Now that surprised
Irenaeus. It shouldn't surprise us. That's the witness of history
concerning the schlechim [??shlechim?] and their followers. That's the
pattern for Messianic Judaism.
PRINCIPLES BEHIND MESSIANIC JUDAISM
I want to move now to the principles behind Messianic Judaism. The
major, overriding principle is found in the words of Yeshua in what is
called the "Sermon on the Mount." This is a crucial passage in Yeshua's
understanding Himself and His mission. Particularly in relation to His
traditions. What does He say here? Chapter 5 is written for us by Levi
haShliach. Beginning in verse 17. He says, "Don't think that I have
come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I've come not to abolish
them, but to fulfill them." He says "I've [??come] not to abolish". You
look up this term, it's a very interesting term. Go back home. Take
your Greek-English dictionary of the first century off the shelf and
look it up. You're looking at me like you don't have one. OK, anyhow,
if you were to do that, you would find that the word means "to do away
with, to abolish, to annul, to make invalid, to repeal." He says "I
haven't come to do any of those things." In case you missed it the first
time, notice He repeats it a second time? Just for us who are slow. "I
haven't come to do away with ; I haven't come to abolish; I haven't come
to annul; I haven't come to make invalid; I haven't come to repeal",
none of these things. That's interpreting things contextually.
We also can textually interpret things culturally. And as Burt [Yellen]
pointed out yesterday, in a brief reference to this passage, there is
also a Rabbinic context to this term "destroy". Destroy means to
misinterpret, to misapply, to misuse scripture. He says, "I haven't
come to do that." You can also add "misplace." Which is often the way
Yeshua's modern-day followers have reacted to this same material. They
say, "Oh yes, it's inspired by God, but it's misplaced." How do you
know? Look at the Bibles. Do you have any crinkled pages or
underlining preceding the gospels of Matthew? Not in most cases.
Anyhow, back to the text. "I haven't come to abolish, but to fulfill."
Interesting construction here. It's a construction that's set up in such
a way that "abolish" and "fulfill" are opposites. They are strong
contrasts one with the other. In other words, the one contradicts the
other. It's like Hamlet told us, "To be or not to be." You cannot do
both. That's the question??? (I'm sorry. That's a wrong emphasis.)
Everything that "abolish" is, "fulfill" is not. Now how many times have
you heard discussions of "fulfill" that have turned into "abolish"? It
means again (take your Greek-English dictionary off the shelf) "cram
full". Actually, if you understood English, you would understand it.
Take the word apart, "full fill", put it back together again. What does
it mean? "fill full, make complete, confirm", all these are in the
dictionary. "Show forth the true meaning of, bring the full
expression". The image is that you find elsewhere in the gospel by Levi
haShliach chapter 13. It's in that interesting parable, the householder
who brings stuff out of that treasure chest. That's the image -
bringing stuff out of the treasure chest. There is another image
underlying this term here, that of "crown". Something that shows off
something else in its full beauty. In other words, the whole of the
Jewish system and traditions foreshadows and highlights Yeshua,
emphasizing His brilliance and His glory like a crown.
But this is a two-sided figure. Yeshua in turn takes up the system, the
traditions, in Himself; crowns it; fills it out; gives meaning to it;
shows it off in its full radiance and significance. That's the image.
Someone will say, "Wait a second. Yeshua wasn't speaking Greek."
Correct. Even though the text is written in Greek, of course Levi,
being the good author as he is, would have been able to come up with a
good translation. But let's look at the Hebrew and the Aramaic. (By the
way, the likelihood is that Yeshua spoke far more Hebrew than Aramaic.
That is becoming more and more known nowadays, but we'll leave that to
another time.)
But let's start with the Aramaic. "La-ah-suffay" is the term here. It
means "to add", "to fill full". The connotation of this particular
Aramaic term is to preserve the intended meaning of something by
including all the actions implied in the statement. That is exactly
what He does beginning in verse 20. "You have heard it said that the
text says <this>, but it also includes all of <this>." La-ah-suffay,
"to add", "to fill full".
Now, granted that Yeshua was speaking Hebrew. "Kee-aim" is the term,
"uphold". Interesting Hebrew term. It means "the teaching I am
giving", or "the teaching that is being given agrees with the text of
scripture in question." He said, "I'm giving you the right
interpretation."
Wait a second. Doesn't He say, "You have heard it said, but I say..."?
Isn't He contrasting? That's what you've heard, right? My friends,
that is a typical rabbinic formula. The rabbis used it all the time.
Here is what they meant by it. Not that "I'm setting aside." They
didn't mean that at all. He says, "I'm giving you the correct and
complete interpretation that upholds the text." That is how that formula
was used by the rabbis. That is exactly what He was doing. "Kee-aim",
upholding the text; giving the interpretation that agrees with the text
of scripture in question. The correct and complete interpretation.
Hold it. Rav Shaul wrote, "The Messiah is the end of the law." Romans
10 verse 4 says it very clearly. Ya'akov also wrote something using the
same phrase. Chapter 5 verse 11 Ya'akov says, "You have heard of Job's
perseverance and have seen"--the same term--"the end of the Lord." Not
the Law but the end of the Lord. My friends, if Romans 10:4 says "There
is the end of [??the] Law," then Ya'akov says, using the same term,
"There is the end of the Lord," does that give you the idea that perhaps
we are not using the right English translation? It ought to because the
Greek term means "goal" or "purpose." In other words Rav Shaul is
saying, the good rabbi that he is, "The Law is the pathway leading to
Yeshua." And that image of tutor or pedagogue in Galatians is exactly
the same image.
What can we conclude from looking at these words from the Sermon on the
Mount? Yeshua came to bring the correct and complete understanding of
the Law, to indicate its true and complete meaning. He came as the
fullest expression of the Biblical Jewish system, of the traditions,
thoroughly consistent with them as their central and as their essential
focus, their centerpiece, showing us their complete meaning, lifting
these things to new heights, the treasure chest, not setting aside.
That is what He said. Let me paraphrase what He said: "If you will allow
me," he said, "not only do I not overthrow the Law or empty it of its
contents, but on the contrary, I increase that content so as to fill the
Law full to the brim." Rav Shaul said that if we don't set it aside, we
establish it.
Let me quote to you once again from Pincas Lepide, the Orthodox scholar:
"According to the Gospels, Jesus never and nowhere broke the Law of
Moses; nor did He in any way provoke its infringement. It is entirely
false to say that he did. In this respect you must believe me for I do
know my Talmud. This Jesus was as faithful to the Law as I would hope
to be, but I suspect that Jesus was more faithful to the Law than I am.
And I am an Orthodox Jew." Again with all the connotations of what He
said.
That is the principle behind Messianic Judaism.
PROBLEMS OF MESSIANIC JUDAISM
Now what I have just presented to you, I grant to you, presents all
sorts of problems, problems of Messianic Judaism.
The first thing will be said, "Wait a minute! What about Yeshua's
conflict with the Pharisees?"
Compatibility.
Let's do some work historically, once again. When you look at the
friction that takes place here, the first thing you see as you study the
Pharisees and you study Yeshua is compatibility. Most people assume
that Yeshua and the Pharisees were constantly at each other's throats.
They were adversaries with little in common. On the contrary, what you
will find, if you study, is that there a great many large, substantial
areas of complete agreement in their teachings. Their style of teaching
is similar. The use of scripture, the way it was used, or the way they
used examples in parables. The content of that teaching: God is creator
of the universe, the Father in Heaven, Scripture is authoritative and
divine, reward and punishment, gehenna, God's providential care,
resurrection, the importance of humility, kindness, care for the needy,
making peace in human relationships, the greatest commandment. All of
these are in the Pharisees.
And that is why you find parallel statements. Let me give you a quote.
"He who humbles himself the Lord raises up and he who exalts himself the
Lord humbles." Where does that come from? It comes from the Gospels,
yes; but it also comes from the Talmud. [Statement from the audience -
inaudible. Reply to statement:] "No not Proverbs, from Luke. But it
comes from the Talmud: Turn the other cheek." Radical statement by
Yeshua. It comes from at least two places in the Talmud.
Praying for the one who does you evil. Guess where it is found. You
can also find it in the Talmud. (Of course, our friend in the film
didn't quote those passages, by the way. Oh, sorry, that is something
that we were reflecting on earlier this morning.) The golden rule,
Yeshua thought it up, right? He was quoting Hillel from 100 years
earlier. "So much so is there a parallel between Yeshua and the
Pharisees", I quote now Joseph Clausner from his book "Jesus of
Nazareth", "despite all Christian antagonism to the Pharisees, the
teaching of the Pharisees remained the basis of early Christian
teaching."
Wait a second, what about all His disagreements? Remember there are
two schools of Pharisees, Shammai and Hillel. And what Yeshua does is
He often sides with one against the other. Should this surprise you?
Not really. So He has disagreement with one side or the other. (And
usually you find Him on the side of Hillel, but not always.)
And another thing you must remember is that our teachings were still
developing. They were not solidified at this time. This time can be
characterized as astatsis [??Gk. astatos??] , of flux and flex, flux
and flexibility. So there would be local variations. There would be
ongoing discussions. Some of which Yeshua rejected. Some of which the
Pharisees rejected.
But wait a second, didn't He condemn the Pharisees?--chapter 23 of Levi
haShliach. And quite strongly, yes. But quite mildly compared to the
Talmud's condemnation of the Pharisees. And remember the Talmud was
written by the Pharisees. Talmud lists seven Pharisees, only two were
the good guys. The rest wear black hats. (I'm sorry. Black hats in
our culture is the wrong ones.) The rest wear white hats. (Freudian
slip.) They used terminology that is far stronger than anything Yeshua
uses in chapter 23. For the same reasons, hypocrisy. He doesn't
condemn their teaching. He condemns the hypocrites among them. And so
do the Pharisees. They understood their problem.
Controversy.
I do want to talk about controversy, because there's two major areas.
How about the Shabbat controversy? Mark chapter 2, twelfth [??huh?]
chapter of Levi's Gospel. You can remember the scene. The shlechim
going through the field. They are going through the field. They are
picking grain. They are eating the grain. Ah, they've desecrated the
Shabbat! Let me quote you from the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, "Bundles
which can be taken up with one hand may handled on the Sabbath. And he
may break it with his hand and eat thereof." That is exactly what the
shlechim were doing. And in defending the actions of His followers
Yeshua quotes Hosea chapter 6 verse 6, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
That's exactly what the Talmud quotes in making exactly the same case.
The examples Yeshua uses, David eating the showbread, sacrifice at the
Temple on Shabbat, the same examples the Pharisees use in making the
same case. The case is: that needs of life are paramount even over the
Shabbat regulations. Yeshua concludes by saying, "Sabbath was made for
man, not man for the Sabbath." That is a quote of the tractate Yoma from
the Talmud.
Now let me suggest that when the Talmud quotes that, it's not abolishing
Shabbat. And you can bet that Yeshua isn't either.
"Now wait a second! Mark chapter 7. I mean He has made all foods
clean." Right? Look at the background. Chapter 7 begins with verse
one. The controversy is over hand washing. There was a controversy in
the first century as to who washes the hands and how, and the inside of
the cup or the outside of the cup. What do you wash first, the cup or
the hands. [Laughter from the audience for moment] Yeah, we laugh at it,
but there is a logic behind it. And it was important for these people.
That is the controversy he is dealing with, not with the kosher. "But
wait a second! Doesn't it say in verse 19 "thus He made all foods
kosher?" Most of your translations say that, right? "He abolished the
food laws!"
I had a professor, who is now a friend. (That doesn't always work out
that way, by the way.) One thing he taught us (he was also my Hebrew
professor) was, "When you're dealing with the Bible, keep your finger on
the text. And also remember to read the context." All right, so let's
keep our on finger on the text.
Beginning back in verse nine He says, "By some of these traditions you
have overthrown the regulations and the guidelines coming from God."
Mark 7. Now having said that, what is He going to do next? Abolish one
of God's commands? Give the man a little more credit than that! And
remember too what He said in the Sermon on the Mount, "I haven't come to
abolish these things." Also remember a very interesting story. In some
loose sense, if you want to use the analogy, it is a midrash on this
passage. (Not really but we'll just play with that.)
Chapter 10 and 11 of the Book of Acts, Shimon is praying on the house
top. When? During the time of prayer. Hum, interesting, he hadn't
forgotten the customs yet. He sees this vision. A sheet full of
animals. It comes down. "Rise, Shimon, kill and eat." And Shimon grabs
his butcher knife from his back pocket and boy he digs in, right? No.
He doesn't. He says, "No, wait, wait, I've never done this!" And it
repeats itself, what, twice more, for a total of three times. And then
you see the light bulb going on in Shimon's head. "Oh, great!" He
rushes downstairs and has pork chops, right? What does he do? He
rushes off to Cornelius. Now, he explains himself in chapter 11. And
he said, "God gave me this vision. And I finally understood the vision.
Now, I'll have a pork roast." Is that what he said? No. The vision
meant what? The vision meant to go to Cornelius; it had nothing to do
with kashrut! That's not my interpretation; that is his, and he got the
vision. So let us let him interpret it. Oh, and by the way, if this
passage in Mark had intended to declare all foods clean, yet bet the
voice, the baht-koh, would have said, "Remember what Yeshua said, 'Thus
He declared all foods clean.'" Or Shimon would have said, "Oh yes, then
I remembered the words of Yeshua, 'Thus He declared all foods clean.'"
Never in the passages do you find that.
So what is going on here? Once again, you have a wrong translation.
This translation, interestingly enough began around the third century
with a man by the name of Origen. He was no friend of the Jews. It has
been followed, basically, ever since. If you check the text out you
find that the cleansing that is referred to in verse 19 [of Mark 7] is
grammatically related not to food, but to the latrine, or in the Old
English the draught. (In our house we call it the potty.) In one of the
few cases where the King James Version gets it right, it says,
"Whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him. Because it does
not enter his heart, but enters his stomach. And then it passes out of
it (as we would say 'into the potty'), thus eliminating the meat." The
purging or the cleansing is elimination. He is talking about the potty
process. He is not declaring foods clean. And you can understand it.
It's an illustration from nature to make the point He has been making.
Now, having looked at these two major so-called conflicts, obviously
there is some conflict between Yeshua and the religious leaders. I
don't want to downplay that. But it is not the content of His
teaching. We've looked at that, almost all of which is paralleled in
Pharisees. So, for example, if you were to read the book by Asher
Finkle, "The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth" or, from a Christian
perspective, "Jesus the Prophetic Pharisee", and even Clausner's
statement, Yeshua was consistent in His life and teachings with the
Pharisees.
Where is the conflict coming from? What's it all about? Well, think
about it for a second. What does He claim in Mark chapter 2 verse 10?
He claims unique, supreme authority for Himself. He says, "I have the
authority to forgive sins." Someone comes around with that kind of
authority, it threatens the authorities in power. And you read about
it. Yochanan records it for us in chapter 11 verses 49-51. The High
Priest said, "Whoa, what am I going to do? Someone is challenging my
authority. It's better for one man to die than for the whole nation to
be destroyed." We end up with political turmoil here because someone is
challenging the vested authority. "They're going to wipe us out." Rome
was not the most compassionate of nations. He understood He challenged
the authority.
He also made other claims, not just supreme authority. He claimed to be
a supernatural messiah. Now this produces a challenge. It demands a
decision concerning His claims. (And, by the way, this is something you
need to understand as you deal with other people, be they Jews or
Gentiles, I'll develop this more, pardon the plug, in the Messianic
Apologetics course at the yeshiva before the conference, the Union's
national conference this summer.) Yeshua said, basically, to put it on
the bottom line, "I am God in human form." Is it true or is it false?
We have no other choices. It is either true or it is false. They had
no other choice. If it's true, what do they do? They become Messianic
Jews. It is false, what do they do? You have to execute Him for
blasphemy, if you're going to be religiously consistent. You either
accept His claims, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, a bunch of others.
Acts 21 verse 20 says there are literally myriads of Pharisees in
Jerusalem alone. You either accept His claims or you execute Him for
blasphemy. They had no other choice.
That's the first problem about Messianic Judaism, the conflict with the
Pharisees.
Second Problem:
Wait a second, what you're talking about means we are going back under
the Law. Well, let's think about that a second. I want to look
at this concept of the Law or Torah in three areas. First let's look at
the terms that are involved, then let's look at the treaties before the
background, then we'll look at time. (You'll pardon me. I have a
perverse mind. I alliterate everything.)
Terms. The Greek term for "law." It's a very interesting term. It has
a multiplicity of uses. It can mean anything from Scripture to laws in
general, like the laws of nature, to legalism. For example, in Romans
chapter 11 there are at least six uses of "law" in the one chapter
alone. Let me suggest to you, if you do a careful study, that the
negative use is directed against legalism. What are we talking about by
"legalism"? Any system whereby I, by my own effort and in my own
strength, try to bring merit for standing before God. I try to do it or
earn it on my own.
Now in Rav Shaul's time legalism had often been confused with the proper
understanding of Law or Torah.
The second thing to remember concerning terms. Now we look at the
Hebrew term. What does the Hebrew term "Torah" mean? Law? No, it does
not mean "law." It means "instruction", "teachings." That's what it
means, "instruction", not "law." Now that's in line with the historical
background of the Torah which has to do with the ancient Near Eastern
treaties.
Treaties: In the Books of Moses they are very specifically
constructed, they are constructed according the pattern of ancient Near
Eastern treaties. And I don't have the time to develop this for you.
You lay beside the passages from Exodus, from Leviticus, from
Deuteronomy beside the ancient Near Eastern treaties and you will find
that they are parallel in almost every way.
Now the historical pattern of these ancient Near Eastern treaties is
significant. The historical pattern tells something about the purpose
and the significance of the Torah material. And the pattern is this,
that obedience to the Law does not result in conventual [??covenantal??
??conventional?? CONVENTUAL HAS TO DO WITH A CONVENT !!] relationship
with God. Why? Because the historical pattern is this: in the ancient
treaties the prolog was set up there to tell what the great king had
done in the past, had done for your nation before he entered into
relationship with the nation. He had done these tremendous thing for
you. He had established a relationship. And then he talks about other
things. He talks about guidelines and responsibilities of these
treaties.
It's the same pattern that you find in the Torah materials. You find it,
for example, in Exodus chapter 6 verses 6-8. God said, "I will (He is
speaking to Moses now in the future) I will make them my people (When?
When they reach Sinai? No.) when I take them out of Egypt." Psalm
105:37 and following reflects on the same thing. God made us His people
at the Exodus, not at Sinai. Deuteronomy chapter 4 verse 20, same thing.
"God chose us", it says, "because you were mightier than all the rest,
more spiritual than all the rest and because you said 'Yes' when I said
'Here it is' at Sinai." Is that what He says? No. The pattern, as it
is in the ancient Near Eastern treaties is this: a miraculous
deliverance, great benefits coming from the great king.
The Exodus, what is that an example of? Grace! The relationship is
initiated by God's act of grace. The covenant is also made at God's
initiative. Now when something is done at God's initiative, what do we
call it theologically? Grace. Grace again, the relationship is
formalized. Then the guidelines and instructions follow. And so
they're providing guidelines, not for establishing a relationship, but
for maintaining a relationship. And that is radically different.
They provide vehicles for expressing love and for expressing gratitude.
They provide ways for enjoying God's blessings. They indicate what is
expected of a person in covenant relationship with God. In other words
the Torah was given not in answer to the question "What must I do be
saved, how can I enter into a relationship with God?" The Torah was
given to people already in relationship with God established at the
Exodus.
They were already part of the family and now they are asking, "God, how
can I express my gratitude and love and loyalty because of what You have
done for me?" It answers that question. And that's what the ancient
treaty patterns provide for us.
In other words, if I might contrast here, you have two patterns Torah
material could follow. You have the ancient law codes. Hammurabi wrote
one. Somewhere along the line in your education you have heard of
Hammurabi. Or you have the covenant-treaty pattern, the law-code in the
document of government. The covenant or treaty is a guarantee of a
relationship, document of government, guarantee of relationship. The
law-code is based on force, on threat. The covenant or treaty, on the
other hand, is based on love and grace. The king said, "Here are all
the wonderful things I have done for you. You want to show your love to
me? Here is how." The law-code is what? It's a list of dos and don'ts,
regulations and restrictions - dos and don'ts. What's the conventual
treaty? Guidelines, instructions for our harmonious relationship. How
How we can get along?
This means there's a motivation here in the law-code. What's the
motivation? You have probably figured it out already. Fear,
obligation, you have to or else.
The motivation is different here in the covenant or treaty. It's love;
it's gratitude. "I want to because of what He has done for me." And
those are radically different. That was motivation.
That means that the law-code is a way of expressing grudging, enforced,
involuntary obedience - involuntary, grudging, enforced. Be honest, if
the speed limit sign wasn't out there, would you do it? It's
involuntary.
The covenant or treaty is a way of expressing love and commitment.
What's the object in the law-code? Avoid punishment or at least avoid
interference. Object of the covenant or treaty is to maintain a close
relationship, and experience the blessings of that relationship. They
are radically different. And the Torah material, as we now know
historically, is covenant or treaty; it is not law-code. And that makes
a big difference.
The covenant or treaty pattern, if I might paraphrase it for you, is
something like this: the great king who is entering into a relationship
with the nation that would become his servant nation. The king would
say, "These are all the things that I have done for you." That is the
historical prolog. "You didn't deserve them, but I did them anyhow.
Now, because of your gratitude and love, I expect you to be faithful to
me and to my government. Here's how you can be faithful to me and to my
government. Here's how you can demonstrate your loyalty and your love.
These are my guidelines."
Does that surprise us? What does Yeshua say? Levi haShliach records it
for us in chapter 19. "How can I inherit eternal life?" "You know the
commandments. Do them." That demonstrates who you are. Ya'akov, his
brother, put it just as simply. Chapter 2 beginning in verse 14,
"You've got faith? Prove it." That's the story of the covenant or
treaty. "Here's how you can demonstrate your love. And these are my
guidelines."
So the covenant background shows us that all of the Torah material must
be understood as the grace of God. I'll repeat that: all of the Torah
material must be understood as the grace of God. He established the
nation and the covenant relationship by grace, and then He graciously
provided guidelines for expressing that relationship through love and
through loyalty. The treaty and the ancient treaties tell us that.
Thirdly, time. This is something that you may not have considered
before. You know the law was there before the Law. When is Shabbat
inaugurated? Exodus 19? No. Genesis 2. Have you ever thought of when
kashrut was inaugurated? Leviticus? Genesis chapter 7. "Noah, take
certain animals; two of the unclean [read treif], seven of the clean
[read kosher]." It goes back that far. Here is one that you will not
believe unless I read it to you directly. It's Genesis 26 verse 5. I
had to read this twice just make sure I got it right. All right, it's a
blessing to Isaac; it begins in verse 3. "Stay in this land for a
while. I'll be with you. I will bless you. For to you and to your
descendants I will give all these lands. I will confirm the oath that I
swore to your father Abraham." Verse 5 picks it up. "Because Abraham
believed Me, and kept My requirements, My commands, My decrees, and My
laws." Whoa, I thought Moses was the one who first thought about those
things. And, by the way, these are the very same terms that are used in
Leviticus and the very same terms that are used in Psalm 119.
Sure, Genesis chapter 26 verse 5, "Because Abraham believed Me, and kept
My requirements, My commands, My decrees, and My laws." All of the
technical terms used to describe the laws of God as given through Moses.
Hey, these were around a long time before Sinai.
Now, if what I am saying is true then you would expect to find evidence
of grace in law. So let me deal with that. Remember though, as I
prepare for this, the point of the covenant pattern, as we have just
discussed it, is that the Torah is not law; it is grace. And you see
concrete pointers of this. What are the very first words of the so
called Ten Suggestions? I'm sorry; did it again. "I am the LORD thy
God..." It doesn't start with "do" or "do not" does it? It says, "I am
the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt." The very
first words of Law are what? Words of grace. "Here is what I've done
for you." Moses said, "Wait a second God, you just gave me THE LAW. I
want to find what You're really about, what Your character's really
like. I mean I know You're the Law giver." So he has an interview with
God face to face. You remember. Face to back, I'm sorry. Exodus
chapter 34, "And He passed in front of Moses proclaiming, 'The LORD, the
LORD, the righteous and vengeful God, the God who is quick to judge, who
is ever flowing injustice..." You recognize the passage? You shouldn't
because that's not what the text says. "...the compassionate and
gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
maintaining love to thousands of generations, forgiving wickedness,
rebellion and sin." This the God who gave the Torah on mount Sinai. The
God of grace. And what He gave them is also a vehicle of grace.
Let me run some passages by you. Psalm 51 verse 1 David said, "Have
mercy on me according to Your unfailing love and great compassion."
"Have mercy...according to Your unfailing love and great compassion."
It's grace. Psalm 25 verses 6 and 7, the first one was Psalm 51:1,
second Psalm 25:6,7, "Remember not my sins. According to Your Love
remember me." Isaiah 43 verse 25, "I'm the God who blots out sin for my
own sake." When God says "for My own sake," that's another way of
describing grace. Psalm 103 verses 10-13, He's the God who doesn't
treat sins as we deserve. The standard definition of what? Grace. You
didn't know it was all in here, did you? "As the Heavens are as high
above the Earth, as far as the East is from the West, so far has He
removed my transgressions from me." Did these people experience
forgiveness of their sins and grace in this sense? They sure did if
you're going to believe David. How far is the East from the West?
North and South meet; East and West never meet. I'm saying that
geographically.
The great rabbi from Tarsus, Rav Shaul, writing in Romans chapter 10
talks about the righteousness that's based on faith rather than the
righteousness that's based on works. And what does he quote? He quotes
Galatians, right? He quotes Deuteronomy. Granted that the term
"Deuteronomy" does not come from the Hebrew, but what does "Deuteronomy"
mean - "Second law". When you want to find out about righteousness
based on faith, where to do you go - Deuteronomy.
"The just shall live by faith." Martin Luther is first that came up with
that. No, I'm sorry. It's in Romans and Galatians. No, Habakkuk chapter
2 verse 4. "The righteous shall live by faith." "The just shall live by
faith." Also in Genesis chapter 15 verse 6, "Abraham believed God, and
God put it into his account...", that is the terminology for
righteousness. "The just shall live by faith."
This is why the gentlemen who is teaching the course on Torah at the
Yeshiva this summer, Dr. Samuel Shultz, wrote the book "The Gospel of
Moses". Didn't know Moses wrote a gospel. His gospel is five books
long. It is longer than the others. "The Gospel of Moses", now someone
will still scratch their head, now wait a second, "Yochanan, as you call
him, wrote in John 1:17 'The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth
came from Yeshua, the Messiah.'" Right? And exactly as I phrased it and
intonated it is the way most people look at it. Here is grace and truth
from Yeshua and here is law through Moses. When you get home, look this
up in your Greek text. (If you don't have a Greek text an Interlinear
will do just as good.) The word "but" is not there. Yochanan didn't
write it that way.
Another thing you'll find out, "grace and truth" is the translation of
the Hebrew term "hesid v'emet." That is, pardon me for getting a little
grammatical here, is what is called a "hendiades." It is two terms that
are linked together in a phrase to make the whole phrase a little
fuller. It is a figure of speech that describes the true loyalty, the
faithful love, the reliable steadfastness of God. It is what we read in
Exodus chapter 4 or rather 34 verses 6,7. It describes God as the one
who is faithful, who has lasting and firm, reliable love. And Torah
teaches us that He is this kind of God. In fact "hesid v'emet" becomes
a slogan in the Bible often used in the Psalms. For example, "All the
paths of the LORD, His ways, His truths, His words are (English) loving
kindness and truth", "hesid v'emet." In other words, Torah is a book of
"hesid v'emet." In fact the Davidic Messiah is described in Isaiah
chapter 16 verse 5, "A throne will be established in 'hesid' and a judge
will sit on it in 'emet' in the tent of David." Grace and truth is the
direct equivalent of "hesid v'emet." In other words, now we understand
what Yochanan is writing; he says, "The Torah, a book of hesid v'emet,
(How do we know? We have looked at it through its usage in Torah.) was
given through Moses. The hesid v'emet in that book came into being by
Yeshua, the Messiah." Let me run that past you again. "The Torah, which
is a book of hesid v'emet, was given through Moses. The hesid v'emet in
that book came into being through Yeshua, the Messiah." The other thing
to notice, if there is any contrast in this verse (and remember "but" is
not in the verse) it is in the verbs. Torah was given through Moses,
but the essence of that Torah, which is grace and truth, became a living
reality in Yeshua, the Messiah. Torah was given through Moses, but the
essence of that Torah, which is grace and truth, became a living reality
in Yeshua, the Messiah. Moses is the one who revealed it. Yeshua is
the one who embodied it.
Yeshua, embodying the book of hesid v'emet, didn't come to abolish or
destroy it. In fact He is called what? The "Word" or, if you would
like to substitute it, the "Torah of God" in that very chapter that
Yochanan wrote. How do we know this is true? Context, keep your finger
on the text, go back a verse, verse 16. [John 1:16] This is all part of
the picture where God piled out on us grace piled on top of grace.
Hesid al-hesid, grace from Yeshua, the Messiah, piled on top of other
grace. Torah is the book of hesid v'emet.
Another problem of Messianic Judaism: we're raising the middle wall of
partition. Have you heard that? Well good, I thought it had become
outmoded. Get your finger on the text, Ephesians 2. The middle wall of
partition. The great rabbi, Rav Shaul, speaks of accord in verses
14-16, "For He Himself is our peace who has made the two one, and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility." He talks about
peace or accord. He is talking about making two into one. What peace,
what accord, what two, what barrier is he talking about? Well, the two
obviously in this context is Jews and Gentiles. Now if you happen to
have a New American Standard you'll read that it says the "barrier of
the dividing wall." What's he speaking about? He's talking about
intervening wall or fence that formed the barrier in the Temple
courtyard. How do we know he's talking about Temple imagery? Look at
verse 21. He comes back through with the same Temple imagery. It was
that fence that separated Gentiles from Jewish people. It allowed
Gentiles into the Temple area to offer sacrifices, but they could come
no further unless they became Jewish people. There was that dividing
wall. It produced, as the text says in the old English, enmity,
hostility, tension, separation instead of accord or peace. Now he says,
verse 15, that separation represented by the fence has been broken down.
The Law with its regulations and commandments. That which kept the
Gentiles at a distance from the Jewish people and from God. (How do we
know he's talking about that? Look at verses 12 and 13.) Where were you
as Gentiles? Separate from the Messiah, excluded from the citizenship
of Israel, foreigners to the covenants. You were once far away. The
fence excluded you. That's the context. He says that which kept you
there, that partition wall is gone. What's the implication? Now I can
turn around and go out of the Temple. That's the way its taught. No,
got the direction wrong. Now you can go all the way into the Temple.
Gentiles could now come close to God without becoming Jews, Acts 15
again.
The Jewish people hadn't lost anything. They got new brothers and
sisters. Shouldn't surprise us. What was the promise of God to the
Messiah? Psalm 2 verse 8, "I'll give You the heathen (read that
"goyim") as an inheritance." The two would become one; they would become
one family. There was now peace and accord because of what Yeshua did
because He's our peace.
How did He do it? He abolished the Law and the Commandments. Is that
what the text says? Look at it carefully because that's the way it's
interpreted. What did He abolish? The New American Standard, once
again, does it very precisely here. "He abolished in His flesh (what)
the enmity (the hostility, not the Law)." He does refer to Law here, the
law of commandments as contained in regulations. Did He abolish the
Law? Well, not if you believe His words in the Sermon on the Mount, not
if you believe what Rav Shaul wrote in Romans 3:31. The structure of
the phrase is such that He is focusing very consciously and
specifically, limiting His focus to the separating ordinances. What He
abolished is the enmity or the hostility. The regulations form a
parallel structure to the hostility, the tension. It's a parallel to
the partition wall. Enmity, partition, regulations are all parallel.
In other words, what He has abolished is the regulations that refer to
the separation of Jews and Gentiles. In other words, the two had become
one. There is now no separating fence in between. "His purpose was to
create (verse 15), in Himself, one new man out of two." Therefore, there
is peace. There is unity. There is accord. The hostility or the
enmity, not the Law, is now dead and gone. What does it say He put to
death at the end of verse 16? The Law! Not according to my text, the
hostility, the hostility. It's the hostility, not the Law, that is dead
and gone.
What's the result? After accord comes access, verses 17,18. It is,
again, the same pattern.
"He came to preach peace to those far away and those near." Who?
Gentiles and Jews. The Temple situation once again. Who was far away?
Gentiles. Who was near? Jews. This reinforces and summarizes what He
said before. What is the result of all of this? Both of us have access
to one God. The story is access not annulling. No walls, no
partitions, no fences, it's an unhindered entry to God in the Temple.
I'm sorry He put it that way. [<<- THIS DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT--DEREK]
OK, we can only be brief about these passages, because we have to get to
another problem. Colossians says don't submit to such regulations.
Well let's look at Colossians. Chapter 2 verses 13 to 16, and then we
will get to the end of the chapter. "When you were dead in your sins
and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with
the Messiah. He forgave all your sins having canceled out the written
code, with its regulations." And then we sing again, "Free from the Law,
oh happy condition!" You know, the one I sang for you earlier. There
is just one problem with that interpretation. In the ancient Near East
there was process whereby a person who was accused and found guilty had
first of all the charges, the accusations hammered on the door of his
cell. That's the written code with its accusations and regulations
which were violated. It's referring to that ancient Near Eastern
practice. You see it again when Yeshua was executed. Levi records it
for us. Chapter 27 verse 37, they nailed the list of accusations on the
top of the execution instrument. It was process. He is talking about
this. He is saying, "That which was nailed on our cells, or our
execution stake, was now nailed to His!" That's what he was talking
about, the list of accusations. What the prosecuting attorney had
presented in court, and what the jury had found me guilty of. That is
what he is talking about in this context.
DON'T MAJOR IN THE MINORS
Then we get to the end of the chapter. Beginning in verses 20 and
following. If I want to paraphrase this, let's paraphrase this section
"Don't Major on the Minors" for two reasons. First of all because of
your transformation. Verse 20, you have died with the Messiah. If you
have "if" there, "if" should read "since". It is a particular kind of
Greek construction or condition that talks about something that is
factual. "Since you've died with the Messiah", when did you die with
the Messiah? The picture is in verses 12 and 13. "You were dead in
sin, but God made you alive." Why? Verse 12, "Having been buried with
Him through the mikvah." By the way, this mikvah is not the water one.
But that's another story. "Raised with Him." You were dead and buried.
You've died with the Messiah. What does that mean? It means we've been
united, we've been identified with Yeshua the Messiah, so much so that
what He went through, we can be spoken of as having gone through.
That's tough for us to understand in the western world; it was an
eastern way of thinking. The eastern world understood that, actually
the Near Eastern world. The main point of that is this: we have died
to the old lifestyle; we have been resurrected to a new lifestyle. In
this context, the context is that of your slavery was terminated. Your
former existence which these things dominated is over. From their point
of view you're dead. "Since you have died with the Messiah to the basic
principles of the world, why do you submit as a slave to its rules? Why
keep serving them? Why be a slave? Why keep submitting to them?"
What are we submitting to here? Look at your text. The basic
principles of this world or the world's ideas. I don't know what your
translation might have. And then he lists some of the rules. Verse 21,
"Do not handle. Do not taste. Do not touch." Search as you might, you
will never find these in the Older Testament, these instructions.
Search as you might, you won't find these in the Rabbis either; as F.F.
Bruce pointed out in his commentary on this book of Colossians, pointed
out very clearly. Because the rabbinic viewpoint is not ascetic. This
is asceticism. These are typical reminders of ascetic philosophy which
was part if the Colossian system, if you do some historical [??research]
here. In fact the very first term that is used here is not what it
seems. It says, "Do not handle." That phrase is used for sexual
relations. You find it used exactly that way by Rav Shaul in I
Corinthians 7. He is talking about an ascetic withdrawal from the
world. He says, if you follow these restrictions, you're withdrawing
from the world. If holiness and spirituality consists of avoiding
contamination, the logical conclusion is that you avoid everything.
That's what the monks came to. He says, that's what you shouldn't be
following.
By the way, a quick aside, I Thessalonians 5 verse 20 is often
misunderstood in the same light. It says, "Flee every appearance of
evil", right? Wrong. Wrong translation. It's "Flee every form of
evil." That's radically different; isn't it?
These men fled every appearance of evil. And they were wrong, he says.
Rav Shaul is saying, "You've been united with the Messiah. You're dead
to these things. Don't be dominated by such petty regulations and
restrictions. You've been transformed. You're beyond these things, so
don't submit to these things." Don't submit because of your
transformation, but then don't submit because of their transitory nature
- verses 22,23. All these things, he says, verse 22, all these things
covered by these taboos are perishable objects. They are temporary
parts of the tangible world, things which disappear when you use them.
He says to make such things central is absurd. And then he says,
"Besides, these taboos are mere human teachings. They are not divine in
origin. They're man made; they're made up. Therefore, they lack
authority." That should tell you right away that he's not talking about
the Torah, or anything found in the Older Testament, because that's
divine. And let me remind you what Bruce said: he is not talking about
the rabbinics, because the rabbinics are not ascetic. This is. Greeks
and Romans were ascetics; Jews were not. Do you know of any Jewish
order of monks? [Pointing to his kippah on his head he says] I mean
some of us who have lost something up here and wear these things on our
heads, we look like them. But that's not our fault. Somebody copied
us; it's not the other way around.
And then he says these taboos are ineffective, verse 23. They have an
appearance of wisdom. They have reputation for wisdom. They are
associated with deeper thinking. "Deeper thinking", "wisdom" are terms
that were used by the ancient gnostic ascetics. He says this is not the
way to wisdom. It's not the way to spirituality. They have no reality
with which to control central indulgence, evil thoughts, or desires as
claimed.
By the way, and I may get in trouble for saying it, but I'm going to say
it nonetheless because it's an application of this passage, we have
other forms which we think drive us to a deeper sense of wisdom, or a
deeper spirituality. Which, if we practice them, get us there. And
they have reputation for wisdom. Whether it's an ascetic form or
whether it's a highly mystical form, this thing that is described in
Colossians is both ascetic and highly mystical. We have got to be
careful that we don't fall into the Colossian heresy. You can string me
up later.
He says that this has reputation for false humility, but it only makes
people proud. "I live this way and it makes me so humble." You know
what the problem with that statement is right away. Francis Schaeffer
described this once as "super-spirituality"; it makes other people
proud. "Look at what I've got. Oh, I'm so humble I'm living in this
way." He says this harsh treatment of the body is built on a false
dichotomy. It assumes a dichotomy between body and soul. Therefore, it
appears to make sense. If you diminish the physical, you elevate the
spiritual. You elevate the mind. You elevate the consciousness. It's
also not rabbinic. It's also not biblical. Rav Shaul says here, not
so. They lack any value. It may appear wise. It may seem to be an
expression of devotion, of humility, of commendable discipline. But
this only has to do with appearances and it is a false appearance.
There is no reality, no power here; it only produces failure and
frustration. He says, don't major on the minors. And that's what he is
talking about. He's talking about an ascetic, mystic philosophy. It's
Gnostic in origin; it's not Jewish in origin, when we deal with
Colossians.
Problems, oh there's another problem: doesn't Galatians contradict all
that we have been talking about? And of course, we're all pointing
first of all to chapter 3 verse 27, "There's no more neither Jew nor
Greek!" Unfortunately, people usually stop reading there. You know what
the rest of it says, "...neither male nor female, slave nor free."
Right, and all of us as men should dress as ladies and ladies should
dress as men and we should cohabit with one another and cross the lines
all sorts of ways, right? That is what the text is saying. You better
believe not!
Well, if those distinctions are not broken down, neither are the
distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. What he is saying is that, as
far as God is concerned, it doesn't matter if you're slave or free, male
or female, Jew or Gentile, you still come to God the same way! It
doesn't mean the distinctions have been broken down.
"But I mean, the rest of the book still though, argues against the Law."
Well, let's look at the book. Chapter 3 verse 21, "Is the Law,
therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely[!!], not." "Whoa,
wait a second. Now I didn't think that is what Galatians taught." Now
that is what Rav Shaul teaches. It's not against the promises or the
grace of God. We've already developed that when we looked at the treaty
pattern, and grace and Torah. Remember once again the multiple uses of
"law", anything from Scripture to laws in general to legalism. And what
you find in Galatians is legalism. How do you know? Because of the
parallel terms - flesh, works, self-effort. What is legalism? It's
spiritual merit based on human achievement; so it's rightly called
"works" or "flesh".
This is not unusual. Both Jewish and Christian scholars have understood
this about Galatians. Let me quote you first from the Jewish
perspective. "Paul (you'll pardon him, he didn't understand the
terminology) Paul may well be conducting a justifiable (he says
justifiable) polemic against the erroneous opinions (that's his
evaluation) of this or that scholar among his opponents. But he's not
saying anything contrary to holy scripture which does not teach that the
Law gives justifying merit." That is what Jewish scholarship says.
Christian scholarship, this man is an evangelical by the way, he wrote a
commentary on Galatians, he says, "Paul never seems to have compelled
the Gentile churches to act like Jews. But it remains equally true that
he does not expect Jewish churches (pardon him, he does not understand
the terminology) to act like gentile believers. He never says that it
is wrong for them to be circumcised or to keep the Law or to observe the
festivals. All he insists on is that these things have nothing to do
with the gift of salvation." And there it is.
By the way, I have developed this a lot more in detail, another
commercial. If you have not been a subscriber to the quarterly called
the "Messianic Outreach", a pioneering work of Rochmeal Freidland, you
need to look at that. I have developed an approach to Galatians over
the last year, over four issues. If you want more detail on this
[??it's] in "Messianic Outreach".
Anyhow, some among the Jewish people apparently had missed the message
of Torah. They had distorted it. They had transformed it and its
observance into works, into self-effort, into self-achievement, into a
means of getting right with God, in other words into legalism. And
these were teaching the Gentile believers that self-effort, that works,
that doing certain things was a means of salvation and/or spirituality.
This is what Rav Shaul was attacking and combating. He was attacking
and combating legalism, not a proper understanding of Torah or a proper
understanding of the traditions.
All right, the book of Hebrews. "The thrust of Hebrews, doesn't it
militate against the observance of the traditions?" I'm going to get
heretical here, but stick with me, please. You haven't stoned me yet.
Hang in there.
First, I want to do with you a brief reconsideration of the New
Covenant. Now this first statement, hear it and hang in: It is
possible that the New Covenant is intended to be viewed as a renewed
covenant. I did not concoct this. The dean of Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School back in 1973, in a reputable journal called the "The
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society", wrote a piece called
"Old Promise and New Covenant" in which he argued this very effectively.
He wasn't the first, by the way. Calvin we have mixed reviews on, but
let me quote Calvin, "The New Covenant so flowed from the old that it
was almost the same in substance, while distinguished somewhat in form."
In a sense what he is saying there is a paraphrase of what the great
rabbi David Chemchee said, almost exactly the same words. There is this
interconnectedness.
And in fact, when you look at the terms, both the Hebrew and Greek, you
will find that the terms for "new" both frequently mean "renew" or
"restore". How do we know? It is the same term for the "new" moon.
When you see that "new" moon, is it brand new? No, it's (our
technological term) it's recycled. Its "renewed". When we talk about
"new" heart, what is the theological term for that? "Regeneration", not
"generation" but "regeneration", the same term. The terms are
interesting.
Also, there are a number of continuous items. Go turn to Jeremiah 31.
I'll let you look at this passage. The others you'll have to look at
for homework later. Jeremiah 31, what does God say, "I will write on
your hearts?" "My Law." A new one!! No, He doesn't say that. It's the
same old one. And He says in verse 33 still, "I will be their God and
they will be My people." Brand new stuff, right? No, He said that same
thing in Genesis 17 in the covenant He made with Abraham. He said the
same thing in Exodus chapter 6 in the preparation for the covenant He
made at Sinai through Moses. This is not new stuff. He says then, "You
will know the LORD." New stuff, right? Exodus 6 verse 7, same thing,
under the Mosaic Covenant. "I'll forgive their sins." New stuff? No,
Exodus 34 verses 6,7 which we read. "I'm the God who forgives sins."
Psalm 103 [verse 12], "As far as the east is from the west, so far have
I removed their sins." Micah 7 verse 18 we recited during tashlich.
(Not connecting? Some other time we'll talk about it.) "I've cast their
sins into the depth of the deepest sea." New stuff? Here is something
very interesting. Levi haShliach records it at the last Pesach that
Yeshua celebrated. Chapter 26 verse 28 as He takes the cup of
redemption, the third cup, He says, "This cup is the blood of the
covenant." And we understand. He is talking about His death, right? He
lifts the verse directly from Exodus 24 verse 8 where Moses ratified the
Mosaic covenant and he says, "This is the blood of the covenant." In
other words there is a continuity here. There is repetition here.
"What's new about the New Covenant?" some people have said. Ma h'dash.
What's new? Well, let me suggest some things that are new. Let me
suggest, first of all, that it is a matter of degree, not a matter of
substance, as both Chemchee and Calvin noted. And as my good friend,
Walt Keiser, noted. Now it's not just some men, but it is all mankind.
Let me suggest, too, it has to do with intensity. We have been told
before that we are to put the Law on our hearts. How do we know? At
least once a week, if not every day, we should be reciting it. It part
of the Sh'ma and the V'Havtah. But now God's the one who writes them on
our hearts. That's a matter of intensity.
There is also a matter of intimacy, let me suggest. You remember the
situation. In ancient days God lived amongst His people in the
Tabernacle and Temple. Now God lives in His people. And so, there's
intimacy there, more than before. That's not the last story, by the
way. Revelation tells us the end of the story. We haven't gotten it
all yet, when God lives not only in His people but among His people once
again, in the fullest sense. So we're getting there. We'll get there.
Intimacy, intensity, finality. Finality, this is the final move of God.
And this is when all the world will know.
So the relationship, as you look at it, of old to new, or let's call it
renewed, is that of ratification, that of continuity. In fact one
scholar put it this way, "The old Law remains. The New Testament does
not bring any new Law, but does apply the old in the light of
fulfillment of all salvation history. Even in the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus brings no new Law, but shows how in each situation the old Law is
to be fulfilled radically in view of the Kingdom of God which is
immeasurably closer."
A revisitation of the New Covenant. You're still in Jeremiah 31. Now
this sounds nice as a theological construct, but let's take it from the
text. Jeremiah 33, we stopped reading the New Covenant passage in verse
31, but let me suggest 33 is still part of it. We know that because it
begins in verse 14 with the same phrase that began Jeremiah 31, "The
days are coming when I will fulfil the gracious promise (another term
for covenant) that I made with the house of Israel, the house of Judah."
You know the next phrase; we often sing it. "In those days and at that
time I will make a righteous branch sprout from David's line; He will do
what is right and just in the land. In those days Judah will be saved,
Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be
called 'The LORD Our Righteousness'." And so we sing the song.
The time of the Messiah's coming. The time of ultimate fulfillment of
His covenant. And what is part of the fulfillment of his covenant?
Verse 17, "Here is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a
man sit on the throne of the house of David." What's He referring to?
He's referring, yes to Yeshua, but He's referring to the promises He
made to David, the Davidic Covenant.
You need to know something about the biblical covenants, but that's
another two-hour session another time.
We can agree with that, right? Let's keep reading. Verse 18, "Nor will
the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man stand before Me
continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to
present sacrifices." What covenant does that refer? Where do you find
sacrifices? Where do you find Levites serving the Temple? The Mosaic
or Sinai Covenant. He says, "That won't fail, either." He says, "What
I'm doing here ratifies not only the promises to David but the promises
given through Moses." I didn't say it; He did.
Verse 19, "The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 'This is what the LORD
says: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with
the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed
time," --when you woke up, did morning come at its appointed time? OK,
just checking. He says, "If that doesn't take place, then My covenant
with David My servant", right, the Davidic Covenant we talked about,
"and covenant with Levites (What covenant? Sinai.) who are priests
ministering before Me, then it can be broken and David will no longer
have a descendant who can reign on his throne. I will make the
descendants of David," verse 22, "my servant and the Levites who
minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky, as measureless
as the sands of the sea." I didn't say it. God did through Jeremiah.
The covenant is a renewal, and it ratifies the previous. That is what
the text is saying. Revisiting the New Covenant, let's call it the
Renewed Covenant.
Now let me say something briefly with you about renewal procedure in the
ancient Near East. Because this may help you understand what's going
on. Remember, these are set up as ancient Near Eastern covenants. When
covenants were renewed in the ancient Near East, new documents were
prepared bringing the stipulations of the previous documents up to date.
But when they were brought up to date, they would include the sanctions
and the stipulations of the original covenant. It was done at critical
points in history. It was done when a successor was going to take over
either the ruling nation or the servant nation. So you see it in the
book of Deuteronomy when Joshua takes over for Moses. You get a renewal
of the covenant if you read the text there carefully. You get it again
when Joshua is ready to take leave of the people, Joshua chapter 24, he
renews the covenant. An ancient Near Eastern practice. So what are you
going to expect when a new king comes? Renewal of the covenant.
So when Yeshua manifests Himself as Messianic King there has to come
with it another renewal, but it is that, a renewal. Compare Exodus with
Deuteronomy, compare Joshua with Torah proper. That's why Jeremiah said
what he said, what he did here in chapter 33. Renewal, ratifying.
Now there are some other beautiful pictures that go along with that,
but... I just thought... Another commercial. There is a book that Dan
Juster and I coedited about ten years ago that we're still trying to get
in print. And we were raising the money to print it. It is called "The
Enduring Paradox" and we're offering it as a republication special. The
expansion of what I'm dealing with here in Hebrews is a chapter in that
book. Also the treatment of Yeshua and Rav Shaul is an expanded
treatment there in the book as well. So if you're interested in
following through on some of these things in more detail, on our table
just outside, ah, on our ministries table, you'll find a little brochure
for "The Enduring Paradox." Or if I can convince Eliot Klaymon into it,
you might see material in Hebrews as part of another series in the
Messianic Outreach. But anyhow back to the text.
Keep in mind the principle of Galatians chapter 3. What principle, you
might say. Verse 17, you remember Rav Shaul's argument. That which
comes later does not annul that which came before by way of covenants,
remember? So he's saying that which came through Moses does not annul
that which came through Abraham. We say, "Right on!" But remember the
principle, that which came after Moses, namely the Renewed Covenant,
that which came before - the Mosaic. It's the same principle. Let's be
consistent. Rather what it does, it renews, it expands, it adapts, it
updates. And you need to see that as you are reading the book of
Hebrews and its treatment of the Renewed Covenant.
Now, if we had time, we would get into the treatment in chapter 8. I
don't. I want to do very briefly the treatment in chapter 13. The
paragraph is 10 to 14, Hebrews chapter 13 verses 10 to 14; because,
based on this passage and a misunderstanding based on this passage and a
misunderstanding of the use new or renewed covenant in Hebrews, we're
told that Hebrews teaches us we're to go "outside the camp." Right? We
heard this as late as last summer's national convention. Must be true.
It was mentioned at a UMJC conference. Right? Chapter 13, Hebrews 13.
Let's look at verse 13, "Let us go to Him outside the camp. Bearing the
disgrace He bore" (or "bearing His reproach" - depending on your
translation). Now I want you to notice, first of all, in putting your
finger on the text, that the only command here is to go to Him outside
the camp. "Bearing His reproach" or "sharing His shame" as I would have
alliterated it, had I been translating, is an explanation of the meaning
of going "outside the camp." And notice where we are supposed to go.
"Go to Him." The emphasis [??in] the command is identification with
Yeshua. He is not emphasizing or stressing "leaving behind". He is
emphasizing or stressing "identifying with". He says, "Identify with
Yeshua even if it means reproach and persecution." One of the things you
need to do when you deal with scripture is to put it not only in its
grammatical and linguistic context but its cultural and historic
context. The historical situation is such (and I cannot develop it now;
I developed it in the article on Hebrews which I hope you will see in
the Messianic Outreach) that a major portion of the background of the
book of Hebrews is an Essene or Dead Sea scroll background. And I can
only leave you with one evidence for that. In all of Jewish writing you
have speculation on this character Malki-Tzedek in only among one group.
You do not find them among the Pharisees nor among the Sadducees. But
you have a whole scroll, 11 Q Melchizedek, in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
That should right away say, "Hum, there's part of the background." But
anyhow the rest of it's to be argued at a different time.
That community at Qumran would have understood what he was talking
about, persecution and reproach. They had borne it for their stand.
And now he is saying to them, "Now suffer reproach for a better cause."
Add to that the time of this book. Apparently the time was coming
quickly when the revolt would begin - probably about around maybe a year
or two before the revolt began in 66.
Now this would have been a time of intense pressure for greater harmony
and unanimity. "Stick with what you've got. Close ranks. Don't make
waves." If you don't close ranks and make waves, you're going to bear
some persecution or reproach.
And then he says "outside the camp." "Leave the Jewish traditions
behind." It looks that way - until you look up this phrase in your
concordance. And you'll find it comes from, first of all, Exodus
chapter 33 verse 7 (Don't look it up now. Because I just got flashed
the 10 minute sign; and if we read them, you get through this particular
part.) Exodus 33:7 and you'll find there that the Tent of Meeting was
located outside the camp. The Tent of Meeting was located outside the
camp. This was the place where God met with Moses and spoke with him,
verses 8-11 of Exodus 33. This was the original center of our
traditions, of our religious system. It was a place of communicating
and relating to God.
Oh by the way, Numbers 19 verse 9, it's the place of the cleansing of
the Red Heifer. You know that mystical thing that people are searching
for. I wish I had time for that one, too. Outside the camp, you want
to be cleansed by the ashes of the Red Heifer.
Oh there's one other thing by the way, outside the camp. By the way,
you'll notice in this context, it talks about a sacrifice that no one
has the right to eat. Do you know where that is lifted from - from the
Yom Kippur procedures of Leviticus chapter 16. This is the sacrifice
that no one was allowed to eat. And guess what happened. The body of
the Yom Kippur sacrifices were brought outside the camp. The scapegoat
was released from where - from outside the camp. In other words, he is
talking about Yeshua dying here in fulfillment consistent with our
traditions, with the sacrifice system, with Yom Kippur imagery. The
focus is on Judaism not away from Judaism, if you take this back into
its context. And he's even using Yom Kippur imagery to drive it home
for us.
By the way, the author of Hebrews, and I have my own favorite to vote
for as to who wrote it, the author of Hebrews, smart person that he is,
also uses this phrase to get a...it's a play on words in a sense, it's a
double meaning. You see the Essenes considered themselves as being part
of the camp. So when he's saying "outside the camp", he's not only
referring to the center of Judaism, he's also saying what? He's saying,
"Identify primarily with Yeshua. If you want to be true 'outside the
campers', identify with Messianic Judaism not Qumran Judaism."
So they would have understood what he was saying in terms of a challenge
to identify with Judaism as properly centered in Yeshua, apart from whom
the whole thing is just an empty shell, devoid of meaning. He's not
saying, "Withdraw from the traditions." He's saying, "Return to them,
but focus on them. Focus on them with Yeshua as the center and observe
them, therefore, in the light and purity of Yeshua", to use some of
their own phrases.
And even the next phrase, "city to come", in verse 14, relates to the
Qumran situation. They were waiting for a city to come. They
considered themselves exiles in the wilderness. They were awaiting an
entrance into the promised lands, so they had no present city as they
viewed it. And what is he saying? He is saying "Identify with Yeshua
who's the one who brings in that city to come." Not "leave the
traditions" but "identify with Yeshua." And he's using the very
terminology that they understood to say, "Make your commitment to
Messianic Judaism not Qumran Judaism - even if it costs you persecution
and reproach."
PREDICTIONS ABOUT MESSIANIC JUDAISM
OK, enough with problems. I don't like to leave people in a downer, but
hopefully we've begun an answer to some of the problems. Ah, final
plug, to be done in more detail at the apologetics course at the yeshiva
this summer in Virginia Beach. The predictions about Messianic Judaism.
By the way, if you want to... I promised the last commercial - I lied.
I'm sorry. That was the next to last. A more complete development of
the place of the rabbinic traditions in Messianic Jewish lifestyle, or a
defense for it, if you would call it that, is a paper that I wrote as
result of discussion that we had last summer at the Union conference.
That is available. You can see a sample copy at our table. If you're
interested in that, we'll sock it to you for the cost there for all of a
dollar. But that will give a more detailed defense of the rabbinic
traditions - based somewhat along the lines of what we have done here.
But anyhow, the predictions about Messianic Judaism. Zechariah chapter
8 verses 20-23, "This is what the LORD almighty says: Many peoples and
the inhabitants of many cities will yet come. And the inhabitants of
one city will go to another and say, 'Let us go at once to entreat the
LORD and seek the LORD almighty. I, myself am going.' And many peoples
and powerful nations will come to Jerusalem to seek the LORD almighty
and to entreat Him. This is what the LORD almighty says: In those days
ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of the hem of
his robe (not to toss him into the ovens, but to say:) Let us go with
you because we have heard that God is with you." There is an
inevitability of Messianic Judaism. The whole world is going to come
this way.
Later on,it's the Haf-Torah reading for the first day of Sukkot, chapter
14[:16] of Zechariah, "All the nations of the world will come up and
celebrate Sukkot in Jerusalem." And those who don't, by the way, will
get no rain. God says, "I'm making sure you're going to be there."
The inevitability of Messianic Judaism, Isaiah 2, and with this we
close, verses 2 and 3, you know these verses but that's OK. It's worth
repeating. "In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be
established as chief among the mountains. It will be raised above the
hills, and all nations will stream to it." To where - the Temple. "Many
peoples will say 'Come, let us go up (you'll sing it along with me in a
minute) to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us His ways so we will walk in His paths.' The Law (hmm, I
thought we got rid of that!) will go out from Jerusalem, the word of the
LORD from Zion." The inevitability of Messianic Judaism.
My friends, we're on the right side. We're not better than somebody who
is not a Messianic Jew. But we are in a movement that God is moving to
a tremendous climax and crescendo. There are problems! But we can
respond to the problems, if we keep our finger on the text, our nose in
The Book, and examine the context. It's here we stand or fall. Not only
for the foundations of our movement, but for the foundations of our very
lives.