Hi Mark C.,
No offense intended towards you either, but I have been standing in opposition to these false doctrines for a number of years, since God brought me out of them. I'll offer a few responses below...
No offense, John, but I think that the "under the law" mis-teaching is one of the most damaging "wrestings" or "twistings" of Paul/Shaul's writings, of which Peter so clearly warns (II Peter 3:15-16).
The same could be said of the "Messianic" doctrines that you are teaching. In light of the whole of Scripture, particularly such passages as Acts 15, I'd have to say that I'm on safe ground rejecting such doctrines.
One thing I've never heard is a reasonable explanation from Messianics concerning what the meaning of "under the Law" is. Now it seems pretty obvious that it means being under the authority of the Law, which is the way the word "hupo" (meaning "under authority") is used throughout the New Testament. It would be interesting to hear your explanation for this.
Romans 3:19 is particularly interesting, since it notes that the Law is speaking to those "in the Law", making the obvious logical conclusion that there are those that aren't in the Law. In other words, there are those to whom the Law does not apply. The Law itself says it was for the children of Israel specifically, and never states that it is for all mankind. It is limited to them, and doesn't include Gentile believers.
Paul taught clearly that attempts to keep 'torah' in order to EARN salvation are futile. But to turn that teaching on its head, and claim therefore that we should ignore His clear messages, repeated over and over again for our blessing, is folly. "If you love Me, keep My commands." And His commandments, as Written, "are NOT burdensome" (Deut. 30, and MANY more) -- it is the "oral tradition", the "traditions of the elders", the commandments of MEN, which attempt to make His Word "of null effect" that both our Savior and those who teach Him (like Paul) railed against.
You say, keep His commands. Which commands? The commands of God that one must keep are the ones that apply to them, not the commands He gave to others. He gave different people different commands at different times. Some commands overlapped or were similar, but the Scriptures show that the Law has not been eternal, nor will it last forever, but only until it is fulfilled--then it will pass away, as Matthew 5:18 says.
Before the Law was given by Moses, there was no Mosaic Law--it didn't apply to them. We can see examples of that, from the fact that Adam and Eve's children committed what would be incest under the Law, but were not held guilty, to many other things for which there was not a Law for Israel yet. For instance, there is zero evidence that anyone kept the Sabbath, until it was given as a sign and a law to Israel. Now I know you say that we just don't know, but that's a false argument from silence. The fact is, that if the Sabbath was kept, God would have mentioned it in order to provide Sabbatarians with more evidence to make their claims. God is not foolish, and has preserved His word, but has conveniently left out any proof that the Sabbath was kept prior to the Law.
During the period of the Law, ONLY the Israelites were told to keep the Law. Nobody else. God never stated at anytime that the Gentile nations had to keep the Mosaic Law. The Law was a part of the Covenant God made with Israel, which belonged to no other nation or people, only Israel. The Law was the "terms" of that Covenant--what they had to do in order to receive the benefit of that Covenant. In fact, within the Law there were penalties for violation of that Covenant, including expulsion from the congregation of Israel--expulsion from under the Covenant and its Law (which may have meant the death penalty). If you are not party to that Covenant, then you are not "under the Law", nor does the Law have any affect over you whatsoever.
Now some of the things in the Law may have an effect, but not through the Law, but on their own right. The Law was not the first place that murder was defined as wicked. That was BEFORE the Law. There was a higher Law in effect before the Mosaic Law, but people did not keep it. God gave rules specifically to Israel to help them understand the earlier, greater Law, but they failed miserably, as He expected. They were to serve as both an example of the basic unrighteousness of man compared to God and the righteousness of God through Christ (who kept the whole Mosaic Law). The earlier, greater Law is the same as the Law under the New Covenant, yet we now have the Holy Spirit to guide us in it. It is the same law that was the core of the Mosaic Law, according to Jesus: "Love the Lord your God with all your mind, will, and strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". The Mosaic Law may provide a practical guide to SOME of the Perfect Law, but it is not something which believers should cling to.
As for the Mosaic Law not being burdensome, Deuteronomy 30 says nothing of the kind. It says that the Law is not hidden from them, nor is it far off, but is near to their mouths and hearts to do it. However, nothing in that implies that it is not a burden. That would be contrary to the obviously complex and difficult nature of the Law, as proven by zillions of disagreements over the meaning of it for the past several thousand years, as well as the statements in Scripture that call it a burden (cf., Acts 15:10, which refers directly to the Law of Moses in verse 15:5).
How many examples are necessary? "I change NOT", says Malachi 3:6. Yeshua said that those who break "the LEAST" of His commandments, and make the mistake of teaching others to do so, would be called "least in the kingdom", and that others who were "without torah" (lawless, workers of iniquity, etc) would be told "I never knew you!" (Matt. 7:21-29) It was the CURSE which follows from rebellion to Him which was "done away with" -- NOT His Word. Our Kinsman-Redeemer BORE OUR GUILT; He did not make Himself a liar. What, then, is our "reasonable service"?
Let's look at quotes you provided:
"I change not" (Malachi 3:6) -- Does not mean that God does not change. Read the Hebrew and see that it means that God does not "duplicate" (Heb., shawnah), meaning He does not go back on His word. The context reveals that God is telling the Israelites that they aren't consumed, because He's not going back on His word, despite their disobedience. There is no passage of Scripture that actually says that God does not change, because that would be a false and foolish statement. God speaks--He changes. God does things--He changes. Movement, action, speech are all the essence of change in the most literal sense. If God did nothing whatsoever, THEN we could make the claim that He does not change. However, if one means that God does not change His Laws or judgments, this also can be proven false from Scripture, in that the Law did not exist, then it did. Therefore, there was change, especially a change by the creation of the Law. He also did not destroy Israel, despite their deserved destruction, when Moses talked Him out of it. He changed His judgment. He is a loving God, not a monstrous computer that looks at everything as if it only parses one way. He takes into consideration mankind and their foibles, which is obvious throughout Scripture.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments..." (Matthew 5:19) -- This did refer to the Law, absolutely. Yet, Jesus was not speaking to believers, but to Jews, who were all under the Law. However, in the Kingdom of Heaven--which was spiritual, and is here with us now--we are not under the Law.
Matthew 7:21-29 -- There are two ways of looking at this passage, neither of which proves your point. First, if we recognize that He was speaking to Jews under the Law, then we can assume that by "anomia" (i.e. lawlessness), that He meant the Law. In that case, the passage doesn't directly apply to believers today, but only to those Jews at that time that were under the Law. On the other hand, if this is a universal prescription, then "anomia" doesn't necessarily mean the Mosaic Law, but would simply mean whatever Law one happened to be under. In our case, it would be the Perfect Law of the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Law.
Yes, He did away with the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13), but once He fulfilled the Law, it passed away naturally, because there was no longer a need for it. The Law had performed its function, and was no longer useful.
"Our reasonable service" (Romans 12:1) -- What is our reasonable service? "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Our "reasonable service" is to present our bodies a living sacrifice. In context, if one continues to read Romans 12:2-21 and beyond that, the passage indicates that our reasonable service is to treat people as we would want to be treated--which is simply the result of "Love your neighbor as yourself". At no point is obedience to the Mosaic Law indicated.
In fact, "Christ is the conclusion of the Law, for righteousness, to every one who is believing". Jesus, our Messiah, is the end, the termination, the finality, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. He ended the Mosaic Law.
I have learned how to fly an airplane. Does that mean that I am no longer "under the law" of gravity? Those cocky pilots who conclude that because the "schoolmaster" or instructor is no longer seated next to them in the plane can forget the lessons that they have been taught often learn that the 'curse' still awaits those who are "disobedient" to the teachings of the Master.
Your analogy is incorrect. The Mosaic Law was not an eternal Law like the Law of Gravity. It was a law for one people during the time that they were under the Mosaic Covenant.
A better analogy might be that you live in America, under American Law. But if you move to Canada, you are then under Canadian Law.
Do not confuse being forgiven and redeemed with being exempted from the requirement literally from the Beginning to be obedient to Him, to "follow Him", to "choose this day Whom you will serve".
But the question then arises, which Law are you under? If you are under the Mosaic Covenant (which passed away), then you are under the Mosaic Law. If you are under the New Covenant, then you are under the Perfect Law of Love in Christ Jesus. You cannot be under both. You've got to choose.
There are lots of misleading translations around as well, John. When in doubt, turn to the original Hebrew and seek to understand what was Written. It is STILL necessary to "teach" our neighbors, because the prophecy of Jer. 31 is obviously NOT yet fulfilled!
That's an interesting theory, but after years of study on that very question, I'd have to ask you: Which original Hebrew?
Another related question is, are you speaking of the Old Testament or the New Testament?
Today we have one popular Hebrew version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic. However, the evidence indicates that the Masoretic version was not complete until nearly 900 A.D. The oldest fragments of the Masoretic date from the 9th century A.D., but the oldest complete manuscripts are only found in the 10th and 11th centuries.
Meanwhile, back around 350 B.C. (1250 years earlier) there were a group of people hiding away various versions of the Old Testament that existed at that time, the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Samaritans have an even older version. Altogether there are at least four to five different versions (or more) of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Masoretic reflecting just one (and not reflecting it 100% either).
In fact, scholarly research has revealed that the "original" Old Testament is much more likely to have been a Hebrew version that agrees with the Septuagint. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of scrolls that had a version of the Hebrew Old Testament that followed the Septuagint version, in disagreement with the Masoretic, and evidence indicates that the Masoretic is an expansion of the Hebrew Septuagint. The ancient Samaritan text also tends to follow the Septuagint version, and it is the oldest known version of the Old Testament.
What is even MORE interesting is that the authors of the New Testament OVERWHELMINGLY preferred the Septuagint to the Hebrew text that was similar to the Masoretic. More than 80% of the quotes match the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, against the Masoretic. There are very few that agree with the Masoretic against the Septuagint (though some do).
The evidence suggests that, at the time of Christ, the Jews preferred either the Septuagint Greek version or the Hebrew Septuagint version, or some combination of both. Jesus and the apostles certainly did.
Since they preferred the Septuagint, WE should certainly do the same.
Getting to the New Testament, there are many thousands of ancient manuscripts and fragments that have been found, which represent three or four different versions: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and perhaps Caesarean (though there has been some debate about that text type). ALL are in Greek. No Hebrew. No Aramaic. None whatsoever.
The closest one can come is the Old Aramaic. The Peshitta followed that one. Neither are originals, but are translations from the Greek text.
While some believe there is a Hebrew text underlying the New Testament, there is little evidence to even hint at such a thing. The closest we can come is a comment by an early church father that the book of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Yet scholars tell us without a doubt that our current Matthew was originally in Greek. It may be that Matthew wrote two originals, one in Hebrew and the other in Greek, but we have no good evidence of such a thing. But this is not true of any of the other New Testament books, which were all written originally in Greek.
Another thing that I find interesting is that Hebraic Roots people often say that there are ancient Aramaic books (which there aren't), as if Aramaic is just a dialect of Hebrew. It wasn't. It was an entirely different language. A person that spoke Hebrew wouldn't understand an Aramaic-speaking individual, and vice versa. They have many similarities, but the differences are as great as French and Spanish.
Jesus and His apostles all showed that they were multilingual, by communicating to Samaritans (who spoke Aramaic) and Romans (who spoke primarily Greek). There is some evidence that they spoke a bit of Hebrew, but not that Hebrew was their primary tongue. Most likely, the primary tongue of the Jews at the time of Christ was actually two tongues: Greek and Aramaic. This was because of the interaction of the Jews with the Romans. On the other hand, Hebrew had been a dead language for many years, and was just coming into popularity again, primarily among the priests and rabbis, and was often used in the synagogues in the reading of the Scripture. (Though it is also true that many synagogues read the Scriptures in Greek, because we have evidence of them doing so, as well as Greek inscriptions on the synagogues from the time of Christ.)
Here's the point: God doesn't prefer Hebrew. If anything, He preferred Greek during the time of Christ, because that's the language His word went out into the world in. This, of course, makes good sense if He intended the Good News to be for all mankind. Obviously, you don't force everyone to learn an obscure language, but you send it to them in a language they would understand. Greek was that language.
Concerning Jeremiah 31, how is it not fulfilled? We Christians ARE Israel, at least the Israel of this prophecy. Our "neighbors" are our brethren, and we don't need to teach them because they already know Him, from the least to the greatest of them. We already know that God ended the Covenant with Israel (Zechariah 11:10). We are the "Jerusalem above", not part of the Old Covenant (Galatians 4). We are the "Israel" of Jeremiah, which is spiritual, not physical. It was not to physical Israel that the Covenant of Abraham was given, but to Christians.
I'm going to offer to you a couple links that prove this point overwhelmingly. I'd appreciate you taking a look at them if you are willing to hear, because the argument that the Church is Israel, but physically-descended Israelites are not any longer, is a very strong one:
http://www.eternallifeministries.org/lrs_israel.htm
http://www.fisheaters.com/dispensationalism.html
Unfortunately, although I have a couple more excellent articles on this subject, in the many years since I found them, they have disappeared from the Internet. If you are interested, please let me know and I'll find a way to get them to you, even if I have to re-type them myself.
(The Greek, to be blunt, is even worse in many cases, especially since many of those texts were almost certainly originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic -- and thus there is MORE than one intermediate translation. I guarantee you, for just one example, that the pagan word "Easter" is NOT in the original Gospels -- even if King James had it put in. Compare the four variants of the story of the women coming to the tomb as well. You correctly note that the "end of the [weekly] Sabbath" refers to the time to SUN GOES DOWN on what modern English calls "Saturday evening". The first day of the week "dawns" at sundown. If He was already OUT of the tomb when the women arrived at the end of the Sabbath [and do you think they were anxious to get there at the FIRST available opportunity, after having waited for so long?] then when did He have to leave the tomb? And, BTW, if the goal wasn't to violate His Word and "change times and seasons" to match pagan sun-god-day and Ishtar "sunrise service" tradition - what did it matter anyway?)
The question I would then ask is: Which Greek texts? Certainly not the Septuagint, which is closer to the original than the Masoretic, and certainly not the New Testament texts for which there is no original Hebrew (with the exception of the book of Matthew for which there may have been an original Hebrew one parallel to the Greek one).
As for Easter, I wholly agree. That was a gloss by the translators of the King James. I consider the underlying Greek of the Scriptures first, before finalizing my beliefs about any passage of Scripture. It's important to check the accuracy of our beliefs. Sometimes I even look at the Hebrew, just to compare...
Concerning your belief that the "dawning" of the first day of the week (Sunday) was the evening after the Sabbath, I'd simply have to respond that the word for "dawn" (Gk., epiphōskō) means the same as the English word "dawn", i.e. that the sun is coming out in the morning. If the sun was coming up, it is literally impossible that it was the previous evening. The Greek is non-specific about the "end of the Sabbath", but in this case, if the women arrived at dawn, then the word translated "end" should more accurately be translated "after the end of the Sabbath". Either translation could work, except the passage constrains the timing to the morning of Sunday, so the only logical choice is "after the end of the Sabbath". Therefore, He rose on Sunday, not Saturday.
Another thing to consider is that Jesus was "resting" on both the Sabbaths in the grave. Why didn't He just rise the day of His death? The reason is that He rested both Sabbaths and rose the third day, Sunday. The women, of course, wanted to see Him at the first reasonable moment. They thought He was dead, so there would have been no reason to head to the tomb in the dark on Saturday night. Instead, the more reasonable time would be early the next morning, again on Sunday.
The question actually is, what does it matter? Here's what it matters: God went to a lot of trouble to point to the universality of His New Covenant--that it was available for all who believed, whether Jew or Gentile. He sent His word to the nations in GREEK. He sent His Good News to the nations through ministers that spoke Greek and ministered to many Greek areas. He had already preached to the "lost sheep of Israel" during His time on Earth. Some came to Him, but most Jews did not. In the end, every action of Christ indicates that He wasn't "locking up" His word to a few people in a minor nation, but that all nations would be blessed through the New Covenant. So, besides resting on the two Sabbaths, which was wholly appropriate and explains why He would lie in the grave for those two days, the best reason for His resurrection on Sunday is that He was giving us a picture of a new thing, a glorious new start for His Spiritual Israel, not according to the Covenant given to the Physical Israel. The Sabbath was a sign of Physical Israel, and He wanted to change that day in our hearts to a new sign, not of Sunday, but of a new start on ANY DAY, without retaining the old system that had passed away. He arose on Sunday to give glory to Himself as God, not to the Old Covenant which had been broken by Israel, and ended by God. That's all just a guess, but it fits the situation perfectly.
I can post more than one (somewhat lengthy) article on the Pesach/Passover week, based on detailed exegesis of Scripture, and consistent with Hebrew practice (probably best done in another thread anyway, if necessary.) Suffice it to say, however, that not only does the change in English reckoning of when the "day" begins cause confusion, but so does modern ignorance of the Biblical Feasts, or "God's Appointed Times". There are TWO "sabbaths" during the week of Pesach - the "High Sabbath" for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the regular weekly sabbath. (Lev. 23, etc.)
Please do post them. It would be interesting to see the Scriptures and sources for your beliefs.
As for the reckoning of the Scriptural day and the Sabbaths, I am fully aware of both, yet disagree with your conclusions, so I'd like to see how you arrive at them. You now know, from above, some of the reasons why I disagree.
During the week of His sacrifice, He was tortured, convicted, and put on the execution stake on Wednesday afternoon, and died at about 3 PM (the 'ninth hour'). He was in the tomb before sundown, around 6 PM. The days (ThursDAY, FriDAY, sabbath DAY) AND three nights (Wed, Thurs, Fri) is PRECISELY as He promised (Matt. 16:4 et al), and ends up being completed late on the afternoon of the weekly sabbath, "before the first day of the week began to dawn".
Execution stake? What is the motivation for calling it an "execution stake", and not a cross? Do you have some problem with crosses? According to recent archaeological findings, the Romans at the time of Christ in the Holy Land used a cross, not just a stake. I've never understood why the Jehovah's Witnesses and others seemed to think this was important in some way. While I'm not a huge fan of revering the cross, nevertheless, it was used by early Christians well before the time of Constantine, with evidence in the 2nd century for its use by Christians. On the other hand, no early Christians at any point used a symbol of a stake.
Getting back to your belief about the resurrection being on Saturday, I'll offer an alternative, based on the evidence for the meaning of "dawn" shown above:
Jesus died about about 3 p.m. We don't know when He was in the grave, but it is doubtful that He would be released to Joseph of Arimathea, spiced and wrapped and installed in the tomb in less than 3 hours. Depending upon the time of year that this occurred, dusk, or the end of Wednesday, would have been between 6:00-9:00pm. So Jesus may or may not have been in the grave on Wednesday. However, by looking further at the timing of His resurrection, we can determine when He arose.
Matthew 28:1 says literally, "After the end of the Sabbaths, it began to grow light into the first day of the week, and went Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the grave."
That "opseh" should be translated "after the end" is clear from the usage of that word by Greek authors:
"After the end of the week: this is the translation given by several eminent critics; and in this way the word οψε is used by the most eminent Greek writers. Thucydides, lib. iv. chap. 93, της ημερας οψε ην - the day was ended. Plutarch, οψε των βασιλεως χρονων - after the times of the king. Philostratus οψε των Τροικων - after the Trojan war."
Beyond that, we are told that this happened near dawn.
You'll note that the two Marys were going to the tomb, not that they had yet arrived. Matthew 28:2-4 indicates that the stone was rolled away and the guards fell down as dead AFTER the Marys had left to go see the tomb. Given that the earthquake and the angel of the Lord appeared then, seems to indicate that the resurrection happened then, right at dawn, or that He was at least released from the grave then..
Now, back to the "three days and three nights". If we count Thursday night then day, Friday night then day, and Saturday night then day, then Jesus was in the grave "three days and three nights". Now some may complain that He was in more if He resurrected Himself on Sunday morning, but we KNOW that He came out of the grave on Sunday morning, so we have to backtrack to determine when He was then buried. So, He must have been buried Thursday night, and been in the grave for three FULL days and nights, and WAITED until Sunday morning, in order to fulfill His prophecy.
Our choice is to believe that He was in the grave a little less than three days or a little more than three days, or exactly three days, but where Thursday night and Sunday night (the first part of Sunday) were counted as one night by adding the difference together. Since a little less than three days may have satisfied the Jews, but would not have been literally true, we should assume that He was in the grave AT LEAST three days in order to fulfill prophecy. In any case, we are constrained to Sunday morning as His resurrection, because that's what Scripture says (i.e., the first day of the week).
Early Christians are recorded as having celebrated on Sunday and Gentile Christians aren't recorded as keeping the Sabbath, so it leads us to the belief that He arose on Sunday, according to historical records.
Again, we are simply told it was dawn of the first day of the week, so none of the other arguments really matter. Just the facts.
"Let YHVH be True and every man a liar."
Amen! So...are we going to let Him be true, or insist upon our own beliefs?
John for Christ
) managed to point out why I frequently remark that what the Bible actually says about polygyny is one of the LEAST difficult, and MOST obvious, of all the teachings in Scripture which involve the replacement of His commandments with the "tradition of men".