• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Torah keepers and sacred name.

I think it is well evidenced in the text of Scripture that the Semetic people, including Israel tended more towards block logic than linear logic. Thus when it records Yahushua was breaking the sabbath and violating the law, it was written from the Pharisaic view of interpretation, not necessarily from a linear logic which would mean their thoughts were correct as recorded.

Thus, using block logic, I could witness an accident and say that a car skidded and plowed into another vehicle, and another witness could say that no, the other vehicle pulled out in front of the first one. Both are correct, even while looking totally at odds with one another.

So it appears to me in the verses where you seem to be agreeing with the pharisees in saying Yahushua was breaking the sabbath. Perspective is everything, it is precisely there where the law fails. It can only judge from the perspect it sees.
 
^_^ said:
when it records Yahushua was breaking the sabbath and violating the law, it was written from the Pharisaic view of interpretation
:o I’m going to HOPE you’re just yanking my chain now. Is this truly how you understand the plain sense meaning of this passage when you read it? Where does that leave us regarding the inspiration of God's Word? If we don’t want to believe what it says, it probably doesn’t really mean it anyway?

Gen. 30:17-18: “And Elohim listened to Le’ah, and she conceived and bore Ya’aqob a fifth son. And Le’ah said, “Elohim has given me my hire, because I have given my female servant to my husband.” So she called his name Yissaskar.”

If we applied the same reasoning to this passage, we could argue that Leah only THOUGHT God was rewarding her for giving her servant to Isaac, but that this wasn’t really true at all. The Scripture is simply speaking from Leah’s perspective. So then no matter what God’s Word actually says, we can just go through and fabricate anything we like, in order to get the desired results. Honestly, that’s not interpretation, that’s imagination.

Exegesis: a critical explanation or interpretation of a text.

Eisegesis: an interpretation that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
You're taking the opposite position of what the text actually says in John 5:18. Do we also say that where Yahushua admitted He was working (in John 5:17), His words were taken out of context and that what He was really saying is that He wasn't working? At what point then do we actually trust God’s Word to mean what it says? Is it only to be believed when it agrees with our pre-determined theology?
 
Here's where I see things as they stand right now. I think the reason we are unable to agree on these matters has to do with a major difference in our final authority. We both agree that the law of God is a revelation of His character and personality and that there are no contradictions in the Old Testament and New Testament. Yet where I see two completely separate laws being discussed in Scripture, it appears that you see only one. As a result, everything you read in the Old Testament prior to Exodus and everything you read in the New Testament must conform to Mosaic law or it must be false, a bad translation, a misunderstanding or not of God. If I'm way off-base here in my assessment, please help me out.

OK; here's the "way off-base" part: the fact that there ARE examples of bad translation, or paganized traditions, is a far cry from "everything must conform", particularly when I don't accept the term "Mosaic Law" to begin with. Torah is the "writings of Moses", which is the essential core of God's "teaching and instruction" for us. It contains many of His statutes, commandments, and ordinances, just as certainly as it also contains OTHER covenants (Adamic, Noahide, etc) which ALSO still exist. Don't confuse the "teaching about a thing" with the thing itself! To have additional 'revelation' about a thing, or to learn more about something, does NOT mean that the thing itself has changed, even if we perceive it differently. Perhaps one is finally ready to move from milk to meat, or see better than through a glass darkly.

I didn't see your reaction to this, which was how I would have characterized our difference here:

You believe that our Savior did away with, or at least changed, the "Mosaic Law". I disagree with that, but accept that our Savior (Kinsman-Redeemer), through His perfect sacrifice, redeemed us from the curse (or penalty) of rebellion to His commandments, which is death.

So, I'll start over, because it bears on your "two completely separate laws" comment. Torah is NOT simply "Mosaic Law"; it is far more. Again, His "teaching and instruction" gives a better understanding, even if more words would make for clumsier translations. ;)

And His Covenants are forever. Even when we break them, which His Word notes man has done repeatedly, He honors them. What was done away with by the perfect sacrifice of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, was not 'the Law' - it was the CURSE of rebellion to Him. Finally, I don't seek to be "under the Law", or Heaven forbid, "earn salvation" by such.

Because He first loved us, we should love Him, and keep His commandments.


At some risk, I'll try one more example. "Remember the Sabbath, to set it apart. Six days you labor, and shall do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of YHVH. You shall not do any work..." But what is 'work'? Is walking work? Can you not walk at ALL? Who decided half a mile is OK, but just over 5/8 of a mile is not? And I can lift food to my mouth, but not roll it in my hands first? THAT's NOT IN THERE!

Ever kindled a fire like a real Boy Scout? That's real work, I agree. But not flipping a light switch - probably. And if my neighbor needs help, or my animal falls in a ditch, I'll save their life; thanks for the clarification, Yeshua!

I'm trying to say that it's a heart condition, David. I try not to get too "anal" about what I can pick up on a Saturday - after all, it's NOT a salvation issue. But I'm learning that setting the day apart for Him can be a joy. While I'm thankful that Yeshua made all of that more clear for us, I have a suspicion that David had a far better understanding of God's own heart than most of those hypocrites who piled on the burdens.

Even though I have learned how to fly, that doesn't mean the "law" of gravity is done away with. And even though I understand that flipping a light switch on Friday evening won't cost me time in Hell, or even purgatory, I still try to call His Sabbath a joy.

Blessings,
 
You can poke fun at me if you wish, but the way you are reading the text is frightening.
See, I fear you read the text legalistically, and I would greatly hate to have you sitting as my judge, because you can only see the literal from your own perspective, and fail to see that other perspective which makes a whole picture.
From your point of view, I sit condemned. I suggest you really do go and study.
 
^_^ said:
You can poke fun at me if you wish
From your point of view, I sit condemned.
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was poking fun at your beliefs. I now realize that you were being serious, but I’m afraid I can never agree with an upside-down interpretation of John 5:17-18. Yahushua clearly admits He was working on the Sabbath. The very next verse states that He was breaking the Sabbath. Personally, I cannot subscribe to any interpretation that makes a verse mean precisely the opposite of what it actually says, unless the context clearly supports it. I respect your freedom to do so, however. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest you were being “condemned” for anything in any event.

As fellow brothers in Messiah, I would leave you with this warning, however. Remain vigilant. I’ve studied this subject at length over many years, and the path this line of reasoning leads to is always the same. It starts out innocently enough with wanting to honor God by obeying Torah, then slowly moving away from unconditional faith in Messiah, eventually disavowing Paul’s writings altogether and finally enveloping full-on Judaism. Even if you don’t think this can happen to you, carefully watch those you associate with and keep your heart guarded. This is where it begins.

If there’s one thing I’ve read, over and over in the New Testament, it’s the contrast between Torah observance and faith in Messiah. Trying to follow Torah, even with the best of intentions, will always result in spiritual death. Torah observance, under the guise of trying to obey God, is ultimately deadly to one’s faith, because it will inevitably lead you away from the substance and back to the shadow. The two cannot be mixed. Obedience to God is VITAL as a New Covenant believer, but attempting obedience to Torah will only bring about death.

You’re either married to Torah or you’re married to Messiah. If you haven’t been released from Torah, you cannot be married to Messiah. It's slavery or freedom. Death or life. Choose life.

Romans 10:4: “For Messiah is the telos (G5056: end, termination, cease, finish, closure) of the Torah unto righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Romans 4:4-5: “And to him who IS WORKING, the reward is not reckoned as a favour but as a DEBT. And to him who IS NOT WORKING but believes on Him who is declaring right the wicked, his belief is reckoned for RIGHTEOUSNESS

Romans 3:19: “And we know that whatever the Torah says, it says to those who are in the Torah, so that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world come under judgment before Elohim.”

Galatians 3:2-3: “This only I wish to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of Torah, or by the hearing of belief? Are you so senseless? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now end in the flesh?”

Galatians 3:10: “For as many as are of works of Torah are under the curse, for it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in ALL that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.”

Galatians 3:12: “And the Torah is NOT of belief, but “The man who does them shall live by them.”

Galatians 3:23-25: “But BEFORE belief came, we were being guarded under Torah, having been shut up for the belief about to be revealed. Therefore the Torah became our trainer unto Messiah, in order to be declared right by belief. And AFTER belief has come, we are no longer under a trainer.”

Galatians 4:21-26: “Say to me, you who wish to be under Torah, do you not hear the Torah? For it has been written that Abraham had two sons, one by a female servant, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the female servant was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise. This is allegorical, for these are the TWO covenants: one indeed from Mount Sinai which brings forth slavery, which is Hagar, for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Yerushalayim which now is, and is in slavery with her children. But the Yerushalayim above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

Love in Him,
David
 
You are correct in some observations David.
While some do run off into full Judaism, denying Yahushua as haMashiac and also denying Paul as an apostle because they do not understand his writings, the other side to the coin is where many others go.
They become christians, ignore the very word of Elohim in his instructions to man, and it doesn't take that many generations until they are full on pagan worshippers. Truly by a person's deeds you can tell who they follow.

As far as the deal with your proof Yahushua violated Sabbath and was working, I will not deny he was working as in doing deeds. The problem is, what he was doing was never intended to be listed as a violation as the scribes and pharisees said he was. It was never a violation to heal on Shabbos, nor was it ever intended to be a violation as far as washing hands before eating. These were not the laws of Elohim he was breaking, nor his disciples, it was the law of man. But from the perception of the Pharisees and the people they had indoctrinated, Yahushua was admitting freely that he broke their laws. As do I. I have no problem telling anyone it's no sin having several wives even when they object that it's sin because the authorities forbid it. We do not live by man's laws then or now. Yet I'll freely admit to breaking man's laws. Yes, polygyny is breaking man's laws even though a marriage license isn't obtained for all of them. but it's not sin.
This is what I'm attempting to show the writer was conveying, he did defy man and their ordinances, he had every right to, indeed, it was necessary.
But he never negated Moshe's law, and I suspect if we thoroughly researched the "Jerusalem council" that abolished circumcision, we would not said it's abolished either.
 
^_^, would you elaborate on this:

"But he never negated Moshe's law, and I suspect if we thoroughly researched the "Jerusalem council" that abolished circumcision, we would not said it's abolished either."
 
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision" matter a whit so far as salvation is concerned, :-)


But if I had a newborn baby boy born tomorrow, I'd have him circumcised on the eighth day. Science is still trying to figure out what those who read the Bible knew long ago - he'll be better off for it. Some of us simply call that a "blessing". Just don't confuse it with an attempt to "earn" salvation, or be "under" something.
 
Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Moshe has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.
That is part of the Jerusalem council, I guess what I get out of that is that there is nothing forced on a person. No group of persons can come and command me what and how to be. But by my fruits, I will be known whether I love him. And he said "If you love me, keep my commands." He didn't differentiate between circumcision and uncircumcision there, did he? That is, Jews being circumcised, Gentiles not. Some say if I am circumcised, then Messiah is made of no effect. If so, then Paul helped make Messiah of no effect to Timothy when he circumcised him. That's not how I understand the text to be communicating. If I go put myself under a group of people, follow their interpretations, living as they instruct me, then Messiah is of no effect. But if I follow him, doing as he instructed, accepting his ways and means, then I am a son.
Anyone doing their own thing claiming to be of Messiah is the bastard, claiming to be the son, and this truly is son of Hagar, spiritual Jerusalem. And that's exactly where Jerusalem was at that point. Wasn't always previously, will not always be in the future, yet it still is today.
 
^_^ said:
But by my fruits, I will be known whether I love him. And he said "If you love me, keep my commands." He didn't differentiate between circumcision and uncircumcision there, did he?
Your starting assumption is that the commands that Yahushua said to keep were the Mosaic laws or Torah. Is that what Scripture says?

1 Corinthians 7:18-19: "Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. The circumcision is naught, and the uncircumcision is naught, but the guarding of the commands of Elohim does matter!"

If the "my commands" that Yahushua spoke of were supposed to be Torah, then this statement is meaningless. Torah requires physical circumcision. How can Paul say that circumcision is worthless in the same breath that he says obeying the commands of God matters? Perhaps our starting assumption is in error? Well, either that or Paul is in error.

Romans 2:29: "But a Yehudite is he who is so inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in Spirit, NOT LITERALLY, whose praise is not from men but from Elohim."

Paul specifically counters the idea that circumcision is physically slicing off a piece of skin. Circumcision in the Old Covenant was physical. Circumcision in the New Covenant is spiritual. They are not the same thing and they do not lead to the same thing. If Paul is correct and circumcision is NOT literal, but spiritual, then Torah can no longer apply as it is written. The shadow has been replaced by the substance. Looking back longingly towards the shadow doesn't help you appreciate the substance that is the reality.

^_^ said:
Some say if I am circumcised, then Messiah is made of no effect. If so, then Paul helped make Messiah of no effect to Timothy when he circumcised him.
The "some" you refer to is actually Paul himself.

Galatians 5:1-7: "In the freedom with which Messiah has made us free, stand firm, then, and do not again be held with a yoke of slavery. See, I, Sha’ul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Messiah shall be of no use to you. And I witness again to every man being circumcised that he is a debtor to do the ENTIRE Torah. You who are declared right by Torah have severed yourselves from Messiah, you have fallen from favour. For we, in Spirit, by belief, eagerly wait for the expectation of righteousness. For in Messiah Yahushua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but belief working through love. You were running well, who held you back from OBEYING THE TRUTH?"

Let’s look really carefully at this passage. Paul identifies physical circumcision as a “yoke of slavery” in verse 1. He says that if you become circumcised, Messiah is of no use to you. Such a man is a debtor to obey the ENTIRE Torah. Since you already believe that you should obey the entire Torah, then that's fine. So far, so good. But now look again at verse 7.

“Who held you back from OBEYING THE TRUTH?”

What truth? Surely not the “truth of Torah”, since Torah is what you would be obeying in order to be circumcised in the first place. So what truth are these Galatians not obeying by obeying Torah? Obviously there is a different truth that is to be obeyed and this truth is NOT compatible with Torah. Obeying Torah's requirement to be circumcised is to NOT OBEY the truth that Paul is speaking of.

^_^ said:
If I go put myself under a group of people, follow their interpretations, living as they instruct me, then Messiah is of no effect.
"See, I, Sha’ul, say to you that if you become CIRCUMCISED, Messiah shall be of no use to you."

^_^ said:
But if I follow him, doing as he instructed, accepting his ways and means, then I am a son.
So by way of comparison, anyone who does not do as He instructed, accepting his ways and means, would then NOT be a son. All the more reason to make sure we know what He instructed, especially in light of all the passages throughout the New Testament that warn AGAINST following Torah.

Love in Him,
David
 
Mark C said:
But if I had a newborn baby boy born tomorrow, I'd have him circumcised on the eighth day. Science is still trying to figure out what those who read the Bible knew long ago - he'll be better off for it. Some of us simply call that a "blessing".
I certainly understand. If I had a baby boy, I'd probably have him circumcised as well, albeit for different reasons. Mine have nothing to do with anything in Scripture. It's kind of like choosing or refusing immunizations -- just a personal choice, not a matter of obedience or disobedience to anything. Nothing in the Mosaic law is written to me, so instead I just choose to obey God and follow the commands of Jesus. Incidentally, If you do choose to circumcise, the eighth day is actually supposed to be the best time to do it, as the clotting element in the blood is at its highest concentration.

I do wonder though about your idea that he'd be "better off for it", seeing as how God designed and created us uncircumcised.

David
 
So I guess then you are agreeing that Saul made Messiah of no effect to Timothy? :o
Why would he do that and contradict himself?

Heart circumcision was important according to Torah as well:
Deu 10:16 “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and harden your neck no more.
Deu 30:6 “And Yahweh your Elohim shall circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart and with all your being, so that you might live,
Deu 30:7 and Yahweh your Elohim shall put all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you.
Deu 30:8 “And you shall turn back and obey the voice of Yahweh and do all His commands which I command you today.
Deu 30:9 “And Yahweh your Elohim shall make you have excess in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your ground for good. For Yahweh turns back to rejoice over you for good as He rejoiced over your fathers,
Deu 30:10 if you obey the voice of Yahweh your Elohim, to guard His commands and His laws which are written in this Book of the Torah, if you turn back to Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart and with all your being.
Deu 30:11 “For this command which I am commanding you today, it is not too hard for you, nor is it far off.
Deu 30:12 “It is not in the heavens, to say, ‘Who shall ascend into the heavens for us, and bring it to us, and cause us to hear it, so that we do it?’
Deu 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, to say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and cause us to hear it, so that we do it?’
Deu 30:14 “For the Word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart – to do it.
Deu 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,
Deu 30:16 in that I am commanding you today to love Yahweh your Elohim, to walk in His ways, and to guard His commands, and His laws, and His right-rulings. And you shall live and increase, and Yahweh your Elohim shall bless you in the land which you go to possess.
Deu 30:17 “But if your heart turns away, and you do not obey, and shall be drawn away, and shall bow down to other mighty ones and serve them,
Deu 30:18 “I have declared to you today that you shall certainly perish, you shall not prolong your days in the land which you are passing over the Yardĕn to enter and possess.
Deu 30:19 “I have called the heavens and the earth as witnesses today against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore you shall choose life, so that you live, both you and your seed,
Deu 30:20 to love Yahweh your Elohim, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him – for He is your life and the length of your days – to dwell in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Yitshaq, and to Yaʽaqob, to give them.”
Jer 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves unto Jer 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves unto Yahweh, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Yehudah and inhabitants of Yerushalayim, lest My wrath come forth like fire and burn, with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.”

I do confess I do not understand why Peter says that circumcision was such a hard burden than neither he nor his fathers could bear. Fleshly circumcision is easy. I don't recall my own, my sons do not recall their's, nor was it so hard for me to do it for my sons. Thus it leads me to believe there was an additional burden put on with circumcision that they were speaking of that was such a hard burden. Abraham didn't complain about doing it, nor did Moshe. Yahushua didn't complain about it, nor did David. So I ask, what's the big deal? Seems there's something there than meets the eye, but I'm sure you'll disagree. I'm not trying to stir up contention, but if I do stir up righteousness, then I'm happy.

I don't know if you've studied any of the other writings from that time period, but from what I've read that I can get my hands on, many of the teachers from that day spoke in parables and word pictures. Even TaNaK was written that way. It's impossible to circumcise the heart, nor does the heart have a foreskin. Yet according to the way you like interpreting things, it would appear that you think that should have been done if we were to take the words at face value. How is this possible?
 
Your starting assumption is that the commands that Yahushua said to keep were the Mosaic laws or Torah.

No, David, NO!

Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean before the misnamed "Mosaic law" was even given.

The starting assumption is that Yeshua said "If you love Me, keep My commands." The commands that He referenced, taught "with Authority", and gave His followers rebuke and correction from were the one that were Written.
 
^_^ said:
So I guess then you are agreeing that Saul made Messiah of no effect to Timothy? :o
Why would he do that and contradict himself?
I should think the answer to that would be obvious. Paul admitted that he changed his approach to suit his target audience.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23: "For though I am free from all, I made myself a servant to all, in order to win more, and to the Yehudim I became as a Yehudite, that I might win Yehudim; to those who are under Torah, as under Torah, so as to win those who are under Torah; to those without Torah, as without Torah – not being without Torah toward Elohim, but under Torah of Messiah – so as to win those who are without Torah. To the weak I became as weak, so as to win the weak. To all men I have become all, so as to save some, by all means."

Notice precisely WHEN Timothy was circumcised and the stated reason for it.

Acts 16:3: "Sha’ul wished to have this one go with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Yehudim who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek."

This was IMMEDIATELY following the council decision not to require circumcision among the gentiles. This was a major sore point for many Jews at this point in time, or the council wouldn’t have been in such debate over it. Timothy was going to be traveling with Paul and the Jews all knew that Timothy’s father was Greek, so Timothy wouldn’t have been accepted by them, being uncircumcised.

Fast forward approximately 11 to 13 years later, and we find that Paul states in Gal. 2:3 that not even Titus, who was traveling with Paul at that time, was compelled to be circumcised.

Galatians 2:3: "But not even Titus who was with me, though a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."

Are you seeing what is transpiring here? Timothy was circumcised to accommodate the Jews that were requiring circumcision as a sign of faith, and yet a decade later, NOT EVEN TITUS, faithful traveling companion to Paul, was compelled to be circumcised. What changed?

Jesus didn’t just die on the cross and suddenly all believers everywhere had a sudden revelation regarding the implications of the New Covenant. The writings from the period of wilderness between 30AD and 70AD is fascinating if you rearrange his writings in their chronological order. Starting with Acts (not written by Paul but it records events that he participated in) and ending with Phillipians, you will see how Paul became more and more hostile to circumcision as time went on.

Love in Him,
David
 
I'd be interested to know if it was the 'people of circumcision' or the 'commandment of circumcision' he was hostile to.
Again, I reiterate:
Paul is not my messiah, he was not the one promised by Yahweh through Moshe to come tell us all we are to do.
That was Yahushua, I'll do as he said, and as he did. Actually, that's what Paul said to do, follow him as he follows haMashiac. So if indeed Paul went off and started a new religion, I am forbidden to follow him.
But I know full well he didn't. Man just likes to make it look that way

Now, I should shut up and let others talk, I'll put a self-imposed ban on myself for a week. :idea:
 
Mark C said:
Your starting assumption is that the commands that Yahushua said to keep were the Mosaic laws or Torah.
No, David, NO!

Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean before the misnamed "Mosaic law" was even given.
Okay, let's just say "Torah" then. Of course Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. Knowing the difference between clean and unclean animals certainly predates the giving of the Torah to Moses at Sinai. It probably goes all the way back to Eden. However, the issue is NOT which animals are clean versus unclean, but rather which animals are suitable for eating for food. This is a clear distinction if we read the Scriptures prior to Sinai.

Gen. 1:29: "And Elohim said, "See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for food."

Which animals were they to eat before the fall?

Gen. 3:19: "By the sweat of your face you are to eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you return."

Which animals were they to eat after the fall?

Gen. 6:21: "As for you, take of all food that is eaten and gather it to yourself. And it shall be food for you and for them."

Which animals were they to eat on the ark during the flood?

Gen 9:2-3: "And the fear of you and the dread of you is on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the heavens, on all that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea -- into your hands they have been given. Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants."

Which animals were they to eat after the flood?

Every beast of the earth.
Every bird of the heavens.
All that creeps on the ground.
All the fish of the sea.
Every moving creature that lives.

Are we going to now say that what God REALLY meant to tell Noah was only the CLEAN every beast, the CLEAN every bird, the CLEAN all that creeps, the CLEAN all the fish? Or did He in fact say EVERY MOVING CREATURE THAT LIVES? How would you have preferred for God to phrase that He meant every living creature that lives is food for them? This sounds very clear to me. How about you?

Now, that being the case, notice the contrast in Lev. 11.

Leviticus 11:46-47: "This is the Torah of the beasts and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living creature that is eaten and the living creature that is not eaten."

Suddenly we have a clear distinction being given. For the first time, unclean creatures are identified as living creatures that are not eaten. In Gen. 9, every moving creature that lives is food. In Lev. 11, every living creature that is a CLEAN animal is food.

It must be very hard to maintain a Torah that precedes Sinai right about now. What DOES predate Sinai is God's eternal law which is external to covenants and applies to all men equally, even those gentiles without the benefit of "Torah".

Love in Him,
David
 
Mark C said:
The starting assumption is that Yeshua said "If you love Me, keep My commands."
Precisely. So the solution is to simply continue reading and see what He then tells them His commands are. We can see that He immediately gives them a series of "you have heard it said", followed by what HE now says. Why is this a problem? Major alterations, additions and deletions were made to "Torah" immediately following His statement to keep His commands. That much is clear and has already been demonstrated. Where did Yeshua ever say anything about obeying Torah? Where did He mention word one about Sabbath observance, dietary laws, animal sacrifice, Levitical priesthood, etc? I constantly see him raising the bar regarding moral issues but I never see Yeshua reinforcing anything ceremonial or ritual. Just an observation.

Love in Him,
David
 
Perhaps we are getting somewhere, David. :)

Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all..."

This is why I continue to harp that torah is better translated as "teaching and instruction", for purposes of understanding, than law.

If I were to have a forced landing in the mountains, and concerned about survival, I would be THANKFUL if God were to provide me a rabbit, or a squirrel, or (not likely here ;) a feral pig. I would not worry in the least about "losing salvation", or being in rebellion to Him.

But I'm thankful that He also taught us "to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean", so that, since those whom He has made free are "free indeed", that we can choose wisely what we eat*. So I'll summarize again, it's not about salvation - it's about having life "more abundantly".


Code:
Where did Yeshua ever say anything about obeying Torah?

Matthew 7:23 --
"And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work torah-less-ness [iniquity, lawlessness]".

Don't forget that "least in the kingdom" warning to teachers, of course. His summary of the "torah and prophets" into the two greatest commandments is unmatched "teaching and instruction".

And, finally, the Sermon on the Mount is probably the best exposition of the Torah ever given, taught by the Author.

It is not too much of a disconnect to realize that being obedient in love is not bondage; that being a bondservant to Him is to be "free indeed"; or to understand that the last will be first, and leaders must first learn to serve.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

-----------------------------
* While I can't prove it from Scripture, I have GRAVE doubts that either Peter or Paul ever ate an easter ham.
 
...I constantly see him raising the bar regarding moral issues but I never see Yeshua reinforcing anything ceremonial or ritual.

He said that He was teaching the "weightier matters of the torah", David; no contradiction there. (Paul referred to meat as opposed to milk.) But please do not EVER forget that EVERYTHING that the Pesach Lamb of God DID was the PERFECT fulfillment "in Spirit and in Truth" of EVERY single aspect of His spring feasts!

Finally, I note this explicitly Messianic midrash, which I find extremely compelling:

Check out the sacrifices that are prescribed in Torah - peace offerings, unintentional sins, etc. Note that one category is demonstrably MISSING: There is NO sacrifice for rebellion - INTENTIONAL sin.


...except One.
 
Back
Top