Maybe I should back up a little bit for the people not familiar with this subject or debate.
 |
| God's Holy Days |
 |
| Dr. Terry Harman dressed as an ancient Israelite, teaching on the meaning of the tzitzit and how it pointed to Jesus. |
This teaching is espoused by many in what is called the Hebrew Roots Movement. It is also a big drive in Messianic Judaism – a sort of denomination for Jews and Gentiles who profess faith in Jesus (Yeshua) and believe that Torah Observance is important.
Many of their opponents see them as legalists and Judaizers (people following the Law in order to be accepted and saved by God) and point to Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians, and Isaiah 64:6 to prove their point; they correctly state that salvation is solely through Jesus' atonement on the cross – Jesus taking our sin punishment in our place on the cross to completely satisfy God's justice. But is this segment of the Hebrew Roots Movement trying to deny that all-important teaching?
Justification by faith is one of the biggest pillars in the Bible, and anyone who believes that their good deeds and religious observances earn them forgiveness is in essence committing bribery; a judge and jury cannot let a rapist go free just because he donated a thousand dollars to his victim's recovery fund. But one good point is that this error is pervasive in so-called mainstream "Christendom." Just as Zion, a senior member on carm.org's forums, said:
"...believing that one can attain justification by themselves or by any law for that matter, is [sic] a error that can be made, in Christianity, Messianic Judaism, Judaism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc, etc... it is not [sic] dependant on a movement or a religion, but an erroneous understanding of Salvation, it is best known as legalism, and it can be found all over Christianity (in various forms), without "Torah observance" ever being mentioned..."In response to another poster, Zion later stated:
"...you trade one extreme for another, and you have now confused obedience with legalism, when they are in fact, two different things."This thought has to do with a few other huge pillars of the Bible: repentance, obedience, and sanctification. The clear teaching of the Bible is that all people who place their trust in Jesus and in what he's done for them are justified: declared once and for all NOT GUILTY, and God gets all the credit. And at that moment of conversion they are given God's spirit which enables them to live an obedient life. Of course gratitude for this merciful gift of forgiveness also plays a role in a gospel-believer's new-found love for God, hatred toward sin, and desire to be more like Jesus. This joyful state of learning and growing, slipping and falling but never diving into sin (never lusting after sin unceasingly), and repenting (flinging off sin and turning to God) is called sanctification. It lasts from the "second birth" until either death or the resurrection.
There is as much heresy in the Protestant world as there is in the Messianic Movement. Protestantism arose in the 1500s to confront the errors of Catholicism and assert what the Bible says about total forgiveness at justification – through Jesus and not by us. But nowadays you can find thousands of claimed Protestants who place sanctification before justification – thereby mixing the two and attempting to earn forgiveness.
If a Torah Observance adherent believes Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 3:28,31 and Titus 3:5-6 accurately, then there is no heresy. As with ALL believers, Jesus gets all the credit for their salvation and a life of obedience naturally follows. Just as with all other professing believers and professing teachers of the truth, you have to evaluate them on an individual basis.
Out of peoples' desire to defend the truth, things get pretty ugly online. The T.O. people are labeled as legalists and the non-T.O. people are labeled as unregenerate – seeing as they are speaking against obedience. Seriously, all the banter on forums and in "comment sections" reminds me of those old TV sitcoms: one little misunderstanding and chaos ensues. For example, there was one show where a restaurant chef was overheard wanting to buy a special cooking pot from Mexico; since he left one word out, the police got involved quickly. Ha...double entendre...
So if a T.O. adherent has the gospel down, what is their difference with other believers? They simply believe that God's list of commands for all of His people is exactly the same before and after the time of Jesus. While the apostles clearly said that the Torah/Law was all types and shadows – Jesus being the true form – I don't as of yet see any prohibitions against using those types and shadows as a memorial. In fact Jesus is memorialized yearly at Good Friday which points to the Passover seder meal. The only prohibition is against being prideful and thinking your obedience makes you right with God.
Therefore, the conversation or calm debate between obedient gospel believers should be about this:
"Who is closer to the truth about what our life of sanctification should include? Does it include only moral laws or the applicable ceremonial laws as well? What does the full analogy of Scripture teach?"Discuss.
My conclusion
Don't presume someone is a legalist or an out-and-out unregenerate sinner if they hold the position opposite from yours regarding Torah Observance. Hear their theology and listen for biblical faith and repentance. Both sides believe in justification by faith alone and in a life of sanctification characterized by repentance and obedience. Splicing those two lines of doctrine causes a blow-up, and the correct point of discussion in the debate is never discussed.
"What must be obeyed? What is God's will for believers today?"The Law IS a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). The point is that we don't obey. (We just won't apart from God's enabling.) And because we broke the law, Jesus paid our fine. But in the obedience that follows, what should be included?
Usually non-T.O. people will point to Mark 7:15-20 to say that Jesus did away with the kosher food laws. Regardless if He ever did that, He sure didn't do it in that passage. With the full context of Mark 7:1-23 (along with Luke 11:37-42) you can see that Jesus' point was about the Pharisees' man-made requirement of ceremonially washing hands before eating. The problem was that they were adding to the law (prohibited in Deuteronomy 4:2) and hypocritically breaking God's commandments – which is why Luke categorically places Matthew 23's "Seven Woes" in this chronologically earlier section.
The T.O. people say that if Jesus came and preached changes to the Law, declared it invalid (did away with it), and/or broke the commandments Himself, that would discount, discredit, and disqualify him from being the true Messiah. I think that's a biblical statement. Matthew 5 and the Sermon on the Mount was all about correcting the people's understanding of the Law (God's good instructions which many Pharisees and rulers misapplied and twisted) and not about throwing it away.
Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
And if Jesus had taught his disciples directly that keeping kosher didn't matter in Mark 7 and Luke 11, then why did Peter react this way in Acts 10?
But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself." ...On the following day [Peter] entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends...And [Peter] said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him*; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean..."...Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality...The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) — you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed...They also put Him to death by hanging Him on wood/a cross... God raised Him up on the third day...and He ordered us to preach to the people...Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes/trusts in Him receives forgiveness of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message..."Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days...
*[Those were probably Pharisaical additions, like carrying anything heavy or doing good on the Sabbath, that were rooted in pride and sinful feelings of superiority]
So we can see that anything about a division of the daily-life ceremonial laws from the moral laws, and a throwing away of the former, was not taught by Jesus during his ministry. But that is not to definitively say that certain rituals are for Gentiles or all modern day believers to follow. There may have been new revelation to the Apostles on this post-ascension. Something nuanced like a difference in the terms of the Covenants.* One has to get deep into the text to know for sure.
Acts 15 contains the Jerusalem Council where a huge decision was made. Obviously it condemned legalism and held up the Gospel. But was Torah Observance looked down on? No. But was it suggested or implied? It's not clear right away...
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. ...Some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." ...Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. ...He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." ...James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen...it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."If the T.O. people are right, the Council passage condemns works-righteousness and confirms the all-sufficiency of Christ, but also infers that the Gentiles will learn more of the Law as they go on in life. Same thing when it comes to books like Galatians; they see it as about not keeping the Law for self-justification purposes but not as anti-keeping-the-whole-Law-with-God's-help-after-salvation. Obviously keeping the whole Law is impossible, and that's why they glorify Jesus.
If the non-T.O. people are right, then Torah Observance is a very minor issue. They simply believe that following the more "Jewish" commandments is settled merely by the preference of the individual, since they are not in the terms of the New Covenant (which was inaugurated with the atonement coming to pass). That they were given to keep the Israelites distinct from the surrounding nations in the past, and can be part of a modern day Jewish expression of faith in the Messiah – as long as no individual is making it obligatory practice for any others.
Anyway, neither side in this debate should feel superiority. Jesus saves and fruit follows. As long as a believer obeys what they believe they're supposed to obey (LOL), that's good evidence of their salvation. Any obedience is only by the grace of God, and no type of fruit should be held higher than another. There's no room for boasting or bragging about having a better understanding of what does or doesn't belong in a life of sanctification.
No one forget:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.)"
www.youtube.com/News2urEars
www.bit.ly/News2urEars_descrip
Sermons: Grafted In - Passover | More Passover | Gentiles?
Michael Brown weighs in: 7.18.13 Broadcast
Rosebrough's awesome citations: F4F
* http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html
No comments:
Post a Comment