Tag: Romans

Online courses and discussions, plus live Bible studies!

Join the Common Sense Bible Study community!
Posted on

The Doctrine of Divine Remarriage

The Doctrine of Divine Remarriage - Did Yeshua die so that he could recovenant with Israel?

There is a doctrine gaining popularity recently that I refer to as The Doctrine of Divine Remarriage. The short version of this doctrine goes like this:

The Sinai Covenant after the Exodus from Egypt was a marriage between YHWH and Israel. Centuries later, the Kingdom of Israel broke into two kingdoms: Ephraim in the north (sometimes called Israel, Samaria, Shomron, or the Ten Lost Tribes) and Judah in the south. Ephraim fell into idolatry–a kind of spiritual adultery–so YHWH divorced her and let Assyria conquer her and send her into exile from the land.

While in exile, Ephraim made a new covenant (i.e. marriage) with a pagan deity. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says that if a man divorces his wife, who then marries another man, and then the second man divorces her, the first man can’t remarry her. “For that is an abomination before YHWH.” According to this law, YHWH cannot reunite with Ephraim. She is forever separated from her first husband.

However, Scripture also teaches that all covenant obligations (including marriage) end at death, so if YHWH could die and be resurrected, he could be remarried to Ephraim. He accomplished this by sending Yeshua (YHWH in the flesh) to die at Calvary. His death nullified the Sinai Covenant, and his resurrection enabled him to restore exiled Ephraim to relationship with him through the New Covenant.

When I first heard this idea more than 20 years ago, it sounded so…cool! The Bible clearly uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship God has with his people, and this seems like a beautiful expression of a husband loving his wife so much that he is willing to give up his life for her. This is exactly what Paul instructed men in Ephesians 5. I love it when God’s patterns emerge in Scripture, linking texts and events that were centuries apart.

Husbands, love your wives just as Messiah also loved His community and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, having cleansed her by immersion in the word. Messiah did this so that He might present to Himself His glorious community—not having stain or wrinkle or any such thing, but in order that she might be holy and blameless.
Ephesians 5:25-27 TLV

I had some nagging doubts, though. This teaching is not given explicitly anywhere in Scripture, and there are some things about the story that I couldn’t reconcile. For example, who is the second husband that Ephraim was supposed to have married? And what does this mean for the Southern Kingdom of Judah?

Last year I took a closer look at all of the covenants in the Bible and how they related to each other, and I quickly became convinced that the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage just doesn’t work with what the Bible says. I very briefly mentioned some of my doubts about this doctrine in the video series, Covenants of Israel (YouTube link). But in this article, I’m going to address this doctrine specifically and in much more depth.

I gave a brief overview of the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage, but before I can tell you what’s really wrong with it, I need to break it down in more detail. This doctrine is usually given with the six beliefs listed below, which I will do my absolute best to present as objectively and accurately as possible. Please note that I am describing the beliefs of those who teach the doctrine under question, not my own beliefs.

Belief one: The Sinai Covenant is a marriage covenant between YHWH and Israel.

Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, and other prophets frequently use marital language to describe the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel. See this passage, for example.

“Again I passed by and saw you, and behold, you were truly at the time of love. I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you,” says Adonai. “So you became Mine.”
Ezekiel 16:8 TLV

Belief two: YHWH divorced Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom of Israel).

This is based on one passage from Jeremiah:

I noted that when backsliding Israel [Ephraim] committed adultery I sent her away and gave her a certificate of divorce. Yet, unfaithful Judah, her sister, did not fear. Instead she also went and committed adultery.
Jeremiah 3:8 TLV

There are two other passages that I have seen referenced, Isaiah 50:1 and Hosea 2:1-3, but neither of these are actually about divorcing Ephraim. Isaiah is addressed to Judah and says that YHWH sent away the mother of Judah, while Hosea is addressed to Ephraim but also says that YHWH sent away their mother, not Ephraim.

Some teachers include post-crucifixion grafted-in gentiles with Ephraim, but those aren’t the people that YHWH divorced in Jeremiah. The inclusion of gentiles in the promises and covenants of Israel is a separate topic. They don’t need to re-covenant with God, because they weren’t part of the original covenant and divorce.

Belief three: Ephraim made a covenant with another god

Some teachers of this doctrine don’t make this explicit, but the better ones do. This is a requirement for the Deuteronomy 24 law to apply, though, so it’s necessary for the doctrine to work.

Hosea 2 and Jeremiah 3 show that Ephraim certainly engaged in spiritual adultery in the form of idolatry prior to their exile from the land. Jeremiah 3:1 even cites the law in Deuteronomy 24 in reference to the possibility of YHWH taking back Judah who was behaving in the same manner.

I think it’s safe to assume that Ephraim continued to engage in idolatry after their exile. They were scattered far beyond the borders of Assyria and most of them eventually forgot their identity as Israel. (See this video playlist, Who Is Israel?)

This particular belief requires one of two assumptions for it to be true:

  1. Ephraim made an explicit covenant with a false god, but there is no record of that covenant in the Bible or historical records.
  2. Sexual union itself creates a marriage covenant whether there is an explicit agreement between the two parties or not. In the case of Ephraim, this would take the form of collective idolatry.

Belief four: Ephraim was divorced from that other god

I haven’t heard this belief taught by any teacher of the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage, but it is necessary for the Deuteronomy 24 law to come into play. The law is very clear that it only applies if the woman is legally divorced from both her first and second husbands. If the second husband dies, she is free to remarry the first. If she is still married to the second, then she is not free to marry anyone else, no matter who it is.

As with the covenant marriage in Belief Three, there is no historical or biblical record of Ephraim being divorced from her second husband, so it has to be assumed.

Belief five: Death nullifies all legal ties of the one who dies

This seems like common sense, and Paul says as much in Romans 7:1-7, which says in part,

Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Romans 7:3 ESV

According to this belief, all laws, debts, and covenants that bound a person in life end at death. If the person is then resurrected, he is free to carry on his life as if he had never been bound by them at all.

Belief six: YHWH died and resurrected in the person of Yeshua, enabling his remarriage to Ephraim

I am assuming that you, the reader, agree with me that Yeshua is YHWH in the flesh. If you don’t, then you probably reject this doctrine on those grounds, and this is all a moot point to you. (Please don’t try to argue about Yeshua’s divinity in the comments. This is not the place.)

I don’t think that anyone believes that remarriage to Ephraim is the only reason that Yeshua came to die. He died for the sins of the whole world, after all, not just half of Israel. However, according to the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage, this is a major secondary purpose. If he had not died, he would have been free to make a new covenant with Judah–and even the rest of the world–but Ephraim would be permanently cut off, at least from a marriage-covenant with YHWH. God promised throughout the Torah and the Prophets that he would restore Ephraim to covenant with him, this was the only way he could keep his word.

What's wrong with the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage, the belief that Jesus died to cancel so that he could remarry Israel?

What’s wrong with the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage?

On the surface, this seems like a pretty strong argument. It appears that Beliefs Three and Four are the only ones that involve speculation and assumptions, and if the other beliefs are true, these two seem very reasonable. Unfortunately, a closer examination will reveal some problems with all six beliefs, some much more serious than others.

I’m not trying to offend anyone with this. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make anyone look bad. My only purpose is to promote sound biblical doctrine. I know that it can be difficult to give an objective hearing to anything that contradicts a deeply held and loved belief. I’ve been there many times myself!

Here’s what I would like you to do: Consider reading the following as if you had just heard about this doctrine today and had no emotional attachment to it. Be curious. As you read, don’t assume any motives or beliefs on my part that aren’t clearly in evidence. Most of all, check everything I say against Scripture–not against what you think you remember is in the Bible, but what is actually there.

One: Is the Sinai Covenant a Marriage?

The answer depends on how you define a marriage.

Considering the numerous passages from the prophets that describe God’s relationship with Ephraim and Judah in marital terms, there is no doubt at all that the Sinai Covenant was intended to be analogous to marriage at the very least. Were those prophecies meant to be metaphors only, or is that relationship actually a marriage of husband and wife?

There is no clear definition of marriage in the Bible, but from numerous passages that describe the making and operation of a marriage, we can get a good picture of how the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible thought of it. There are simply too many verses to list them all, so here are a few highlights:

  • Malachi 2:14 shows that marriage is a kind of covenant, although it clearly doesn’t require the same formality that covenants usually require. It can include documentation, witnesses, and sacrifices–and sometimes probably did–but doesn’t have to.
  • Genesis 2 and many other passages show that a man is to leave his parents to become one flesh with his wife, including a sexual union. This doesn’t fit with Sinai being a marriage in any way. God didn’t have any parents to leave and there was clearly no sexual union. God did not become one flesh with Israel. The closest they came to this was when God attempted to write his Law on their hearts, but they were unable to accept it (Exodus 20:18-21, Deuteronomy 18:16-17, Galatians 3:19).
  • Exodus 21:10, Numbers 32:16-27, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and Ephesians 5 show that a husband owes his wife love, protection, shelter, food, and sexual relations. Except for sexual relations, these are all things that God promised to Israel in the Torah, so long as they continued to be faithful to him.
  • Genesis 3:16, Numbers 30, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and Ephesians 5 along with numerous commands in Torah show that a wife owes her husband ongoing sexual relations and fidelity, respect, and obedience. Except for sexual relations–again–these are all things that we owe to God without reservation.

These points don’t all align well with the idea of Sinai being a literal marriage covenant. There are two fatal flaws in defining that way.

The first flaw is that there is no physical “one flesh” relationship. God is a spirit (John 4:24), not a man (Numbers 23:10), while Israel is a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6, Revelation 1:6), not a woman. Clearly this relationship cannot be consummated in the same way as a husband and wife. God also metaphorically describes Israel as his son (Exodus 4:22, etc) and as various animals (Deuteronomy 32:11, Psalm 100:3, etc). If the marriage was literal, some of these would make him to be describing himself as the worst possible kind of sinner.

The second flaw is that God made a covenant with one people at Sinai, not two, while some of the marriage metaphors in the prophets speak of each of the kingdoms of Israel as a separate bride or as children of one or two brides. The entire people of Israel agreed to God’s terms as one kingdom in Exodus 19:8, not as two. The division of Israel into two kingdoms was foreshadowed in the relationships of Jacob’s sons and other hints in Torah, but the actual division didn’t happen until after the third king of Israel had died. There was only one bride at Sinai, just as there is only bride in any of the marriage metaphors used in the New Testament.

God’s relationship to Israel can be a marriage in metaphor only. (Or perhaps I should say it the other way around: The marriage of man and woman is intended to be an earthly image of a higher spiritual reality in God’s relationship with his people.) The Sinai Covenant as an analog of marriage is a very strong one in which abundant crops and descendants parallel actual children and worship parallels sexual union, but it is still analogous to marriage, not an actual marriage of man and woman.

Two: Did YHWH divorce Ephraim?

Jeremiah 3 clearly says that YHWH gave Ephraim a bill of divorce, and the first chapter of Hosea could reasonably be said to contain that bill:

And the LORD said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”
Hosea 1:9 ESV

However, we have to deal with the same question of metaphor vs reality, and there are a couple of problems with interpreting this as a literal divorce of a wife by her husband.

First, if the marriage between YHWH and Israel was only like marriage and not an actual marriage, then the divorce must also be like divorce and not actual divorce.

Second, even if Sinai was a literal marriage, there was only one bride, not two, and you can’t divorce half of a wife.

It’s true that the prophets describe Ephraim and Judah as sisters. Ezekiel 23 even names them Oholah and Oholibah and says that YHWH found them in Egypt and married them. This sounds as if God married two brides at Sinai, despite Exodus describing only one kingdom and people.

However, Ezekiel also says that these were two daughters of the same woman, but what woman would that be? It’s remotely possible that the mother is a reference to Sarah or Rebekah–certainly not Jacob’s 4 wives–but all of that is indisputably a metaphor. The millions of Hebrews who came out of Egypt were not two literal women with a single literal mother. They didn’t literally “play the whore” while they were in Egypt. It’s far more likely that the one mother of Ephraim and Judah was the united Kingdom of Israel that agreed to the covenant at the foot of Sinai.

Ephraim and Judah were only present independently at Sinai as the seed of division that had been planted by the rivalries of Jacob’s sons described in Genesis. That seed wouldn’t divide into two separate kingdoms for several more centuries. Israel was not two women rescued from Egypt, but one people who was metaphorically represented as the mother of two rebellious daughters in Ezekiel 23.

If the Sinai Covenant was a metaphor and the two daughters of Israel in Ezekiel 23 were metaphors, then the divorce of one of those daughters must also be a metaphor.

Three: Did Ephraim make a covenant with another god?

There are two problems with the idea that Ephraim made a covenant with another god after being sent into exile by Assyria.

The first problem is that there is no record of such a covenant being made. If it is so central to Yeshua’s purpose in coming to earth, I would expect some indication of it in Scripture. As far as I know, there is nothing about this in the canonical scriptures nor in extra-biblical ancient writings.

Of course, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but I don’t see how such a covenant would have been possible. A covenant according to the standards that YHWH seems to follow in the Bible requires a sacrifice, witnesses, and agreement between the parties–among other elements.

Eight elements of divine covenants in the Bible. Illustrating how some critical elements of a covenant are missing from Israel's "marriage" with God.
Eight elements that seem to be common to divine covenants in the Bible. See https://jaycarper.com/covenants for more information.

When YHWH makes a covenant with a group of people, he always operates through an intermediary with legitimate authority over all those with whom he would make the covenant. After the Flood, he made a covenant with all life on earth through Noah. He made a covenant with Abram’s descendants mediated by Abram. At Sinai, he made a covenant with Israel mediated by Moses.

Who was there in the Assyrian exile who had authority to make such a covenant on behalf of all Ephraim? At Sinai all the people agreed to the covenant with YHWH. How would the people of Ephraim agree to a national covenant when they had been scattered across thousands of miles into different lands, languages, and cultures?

In order for the Deuteronomy 24 law to be applicable to Ephraim, she must have made a covenant (“married”) some other god while in exile, and so this the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage must assume that it is true without any evidence. Some teachers have recognized this problem and proposed a solution. They assert that human marriage only requires a sexual union without necessarily including an intent to create a lifelong husband-wife relationship. In other words, sex equals marriage.

But this doesn’t hold up to close analysis either. Becoming “one flesh” physically is a requirement of marriage, but it does not create a marriage in itself. Consider these points:

  • In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul points out that a man who is joined to a prostitute becomes one flesh with her, but that can’t mean that he marries her, because she would already be married to someone else.
  • Exodus 22:16-17 says that a father can refuse to allow his daughter to marry a man who seduced her, but if sex made a marriage, then she would already have married the man.
  • In John 4:16-17, Yeshua told the Samaritan woman that she had been married five times, but the man she was living with at that time had not married her. The implication is that she was living with the man as a wife, but had not made a formal commitment of marriage.

In my opinion, equating sex with marriage is a man-made doctrine. If two unmarried people have sex without intending to make a lifelong commitment, they aren’t getting married; they’re committing fornication.

Four: Was Ephraim divorced from her pagan god/husband?

This is another belief that must be assumed since there is no historical or biblical evidence of her marriage to a pagan god, let alone of him later giving her a bill of divorce. I’ve shown how God’s “marriage” to Ephraim was only a metaphor used as a prophetic picture of God’s relationship with his people, and that his “divorce” of Ephraim was also a metaphor.

Gods–even false, pagan gods–cannot make a marriage with a group of people in the same way that a man can with a woman, so the language of marriage and divorce in all of the prophecies concerning God and Israel (unified and separate as Ephraim and Judah) is always metaphorical, not literal.

Five: Does Yeshua’s death nullify the Sinai Covenant?

Based on the following points, I think it’s safe to say that legal bonds–specifically marriage–really do end at death:

  • In Romans 7:1-7 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul argued that marriage and other legal bonds end at our physical death, and that, through the death of an infinitely perfect man, Yeshua, we are counted as having died and been resurrected spiritually, breaking our spiritual bonds too.
  • Leviticus 21:1-4 says that a priest may make himself ritually unclean by preparing his immediate relatives for burial, with the exception of his wife. I believe this is because she stops being his wife upon her death, and she is no longer his immediate relative at that point. His responsibility as a priest takes precedence, and he needs to find someone else to perform that task for him.
  • In Matthew 22:23-30, Yeshua told the Sadducees that a woman was widowed and remarried multiple times will be no one’s wife after the resurrection, again indicating that marriage ends at death.

However, there are three serious problems with saying that this principle nullifies the Sinai Covenant between YHWH and Israel.

First, Romans 7 doesn’t say that death annuls all previous bonds as if they had never existed. Rather, it breaks those bonds so that they no longer restrict the person going forward. If a man dies, his wife is no longer married to him, and she is free to marry another. She is not free, however, to pretend as if she was never married to her late husband and then call her children illegitimate.

Marriage annulment is not a biblical concept.

The law about remarriage in Deuteronomy 24 doesn’t say anything about the husband or wife dying and rising from the grave. Even if such a miracle happened, the former marriages would still be former marriages. Death can’t end what has already ended. The first husband would still not be able to remarry his ex-wife, because he had been married to her at one time, he had divorced her, and she had married another man.

Second, we see from those passages that describe Yeshua interacting with the Father and the Holy Spirit that, although he might be YHWH, he is not all of YHWH. We can’t say that the Son made this covenant and the Father made that covenant when the Bible only says that YHWH made all of them. Israel didn’t make a covenant with the Son of God, but with all of God, and all of God didn’t die at Calvary. Only the Son died.

  • In John 10:17, Yeshua said, “the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again,” showing that only the Son and not the Father came to die.
  • In Acts 2:24, Peter said, “God raised him up,” referring to the Son, not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
  • In Galatians 1:1, Paul wrote that God the Father rose Yeshua from the dead, not that he rose himself or the Spirit from the dead.

I can’t nullify my own legal bonds by cutting off my arm or allowing my son be killed. My death alone can break my legal bonds. “Each one shall be put to death for his own sin,” according to Deuteronomy 24:16, just a few verses after the law concerning remarriage to a divorced and remarried wife.

Third, if Yeshua’s death nullified one legal bond on YHWH, then by the same principle it must nullify all legal bonds on YHWH.

  • God’s covenant with Noah, in which he promised never to destroy all life by a flood again (Genesis 9:11), has been canceled, and God is now free to send another worldwide flood.
  • His covenant with Abraham, in which he promised to give Abraham’s descendants land as an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8) has been canceled.
  • His promise to bless his people when they are faithful and obedient (Deuteronomy 29:1-14) has been made meaningless.
  • His “everlasting…and secure” promise to ensure David would always have a son to sit on the throne of Israel, a promise that ought to be fulfilled in Yeshua, is now null and void. It was neither everlasting nor secure.

If the Son’s death nullifies a covenant made by the whole of YHWH, then it seems that the death of any individual Israelite ought to nullify any covenant made by the whole nation of Israel. On the contrary, the covenants of Israel are passed down from parent to child, enduring through the deaths of countless generations.

Exclamation Point. The shocking implications of the Doctrine of Divine Remarriage.

If, on the principle of death ending all legal bonds, Yeshua’s death canceled any covenant of YHWH, then it canceled all covenants of YHWH. Paul was wrong to write that “They are Israelites, and to them belong…the covenants” in Romans 9:4, because those covenants are no longer in effect. We gentiles have not been brought near to the covenants of promise that he referred to in Ephesians 2:12, because those covenants no longer exist.

The death we have through Yeshua, as described in Romans 7, breaks our bondage to the Law (see v4), not God’s bondage to any covenants. His death applies to all people, not just to Ephraim. It is a spiritual death that each one of us undergoes as individuals (not as a nation!) to a debt that we accrued through sins against the Law, not to a covenant that God made with Israel as an act of divine grace.

I meant it when I wrote that I don’t mean to offend anyone by writing this article, but what a horrendous doctrine that makes God out to be a liar and a cheat who makes covenant after covenant, knowing full well that he will throw them all out without having to fulfill their ultimate promises! On what basis should we trust such a god to keep any of his promises? Maybe he has created some other legal loophole that we don’t know about.

Six: Did Yeshua resurrect, in part, to enable YHWH’s remarriage to Ephraim?

This question hardly needs answering at this point. YHWH did not literally marry or divorce Ephraim and so he has no need to remarry her. He made numerous covenants with Israel and individuals and clans within Israel, each one enhancing a relationship which already and continued to exist. Ephraim, despite her many sins, was never outside of her covenants with God, but only temporarily repudiated and exiled as a corrective measure. None of those covenants will ever end until heaven and earth themselves are ended.

So why did Yeshua have to die?

Why did Jesus have to die if he didn't die to cancel out the Old Covenant?

Yeshua’s death had at least two major effects: He became the sacrificial victim that inaugurated the New Covenant and his blood removes the spiritual debt of sin from his people

The New Covenant

As I demonstrated in the Covenants of Israel video series (Rumble link) and noted in the illustration above, divine covenants are established by the blood of a sacrificial victim. You can see this in the examples of God’s covenants in the Old Testament, but Hebrews makes it explicit.

…for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,
Hebrews 9:16-17 YLT

(My apologies for quoting Young’s Literal Translation, but most English Bible translators introduce too much commentary in these verses because they don’t understand covenants. Young’s is hyper-literal–often so literal that it’s difficult to understand–so translator bias or cultural ignorance is less of a factor.)

The New Covenant was established and was fully in force at the cross. It includes promises that haven’t been fulfilled yet, but all covenants involve ongoing fulfillments. The forgiveness and full restoration of the people of Israel to the land, the defeat of all Israel’s enemies, the personal reign of the Messiah in Jerusalem, a through understanding of God in the hearts of his people, and the resurrection and judgment of all people are all aspects of the New Covenant that we have yet to see, but their future reality was guaranteed when Yeshua said “It is finished”.

Forgiveness of Sin

I won’t pretend to understand exactly how spiritual accounting works. I don’t even understand financial accounting!

Paul explained in Romans 5, Colossians 2:13-14, and Ephesians 1:7 that our transgressions against God’s Law created a spiritual debt that we could never repay. Although the penalty was both physical and spiritual death, our blood could never elevate us to the infinite level of righteousness required to be reconciled to our Creator. Animal sacrifices could only temporarily remove the uncleanness of sin from our flesh and primarily covered sins of weakness, ignorance, and accident. They had no impact at all on the spiritual debt incurred by sins of rebellion.

YHWH’s solution was to send Yeshua to live a perfectly sinless life and give up his life to pay that debt for us. His blood zeroes out (reconciles/justifies) our spiritual balance books, in a way bringing us through death into new spiritual life through him. His perfect righteousness now counts in God’s books as ours.

Yeshua’s blood doesn’t nullify any covenants made by YHWH with anyone. It buys the debt we owed to the Law because of our sins, justifying our spiritual balance sheets. In his death we have obtained forgiveness, whether we understand how it works or not.

And in his resurrection, he took authority over death itself. We, who sincerely pledge our faithfulness to him, accepting the forgiveness of our debt and his lordship over our lives, have been given a promise of eternal life, whether we can wrap our minds around living forever or not.

Posted on

Righteousness Beyond Righteousness

Is there any righteousness to be found in obedience to Torah?

And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.
Deuteronomy 6:24-25 ESV

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Romans 10:5 ESV

Don’t let anyone tell you there is no righteousness to be had in keeping Torah. The Bible says otherwise. There is righteousness and life in obedience to the Law. There is wickedness and death in disobedience.

People get confused because they forget that there are different kinds and degrees of righteousness described in the Scriptures. The existence of the greater righteousness found in a contrite and submitted heart doesn’t negate the righteousness of obedience that comes from that heart.

The Scriptures tell us repeatedly that those who believe in the Messiah will also be judged according to their works. There is the pure and binary righteousness that is granted to us by God’s grace, and there is the righteousness of obedience which God rewards beyond entrance into the Kingdom and Eternity.

All the ekklesia will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
Revelation 2:23

For a more in depth discussion of the nature of righteousness, check out this conversation with Rob Vanhoff!

Posted on

What Did Jesus Mean by “Fulfill”?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

Torah-keepers point to these verses as a primary text proving the ongoing validity of the Law of Moses (aka Torah), while anti-Torah Christians point to them as proof the Law has passed away, been nailed to the cross, superseded…you get the idea. Whatever word they choose to use, it amounts to the same as “abolish”.

In light of the numerous biblical passages claiming that the Law will never pass away, it seems the burden of proof must lie on those who claim that Yeshua here said the opposite. This is the typical argument: Yeshua said the Law would pass away when the Law was fulfilled, and he fulfilled the law on the cross, therefore the Law has passed away. The obvious counter is that Yeshua did not say “when the Law was fulfilled.” He said “nothing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (or “fulfilled” in some translations).
What did he mean by “all”?

I see four possible meanings: all of the Law, all of the Prophets, the passing away of all of heaven and earth, and the completion of Yeshua’s mission on earth.

  1. All of the Law. What does it mean for all of the Law to be accomplished? Whatever it means, Yeshua’s death and resurrection could not have done it because decades after the resurrection, in Romans 13:8, Paul wrote that believers loving one another continue to fulfill the Law. Some will say that he was referring to a greater, unwritten Law of God that is superior to the Torah (aka Law of Moses), but in the very next verse, Paul wrote that he was specifically talking about the Torah or at the very least, the Ten Commandments which is at its core. All of the New Testament epistles are full of instruction based on the commandments of Torah. Why would the Apostles continue to instruct first century believers on how to observe and fulfill those commandments if Yeshua had nullified them by fulfilling them?
  2. All of the Prophets. It’s trivial to show that some prophecies in the Old Testament have not yet been fulfilled. For example, in Deuteronomy 30 Moses prophesied that Israel will repent from their rebellion against God and be fully restored to the land of Israel where God will circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their children so that they would keep all of the commandments given by Moses. There have been two partial returns of Israel to the land, once in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, and once in the twentieth century. In neither case was there any significant repentance. In the former case, God returned the people to exile. Today, the state of Israel hosts some of the world’s largest celebrations of rebellion against God. There are numerous prophecies of Israel’s eventual repentance and restoration to the land, and none of them have been fulfilled.*
  3. The End of Heaven and Earth. As I write this article, I am flying through the air at more than 30,000 feet above the surface of the earth. Outside the windows of this A330, I see sun, sky, clouds, mountains, and many miles of West Texas desert. I know that when I am home tonight, I will be able to look up in the sky and see the moon and thousands of stars. I hope you’ll trust me when I say that the heavens and the earth have not yet passed away. In fact, Revelation 20:11 says that they won’t pass away until the Great White Throne Judgment immediately prior to the final resurrection. If Yeshua meant that the Law would pass away with the heavens and the earth, then it nothing in the Law will pass until God is ready to judge every person who has ever lived.
  4. Yeshua’s Mission on Earth. This is probably what most Christians believe Yeshua meant when he said “until all is accomplished”. When he said “It is finished” on the cross, that was the end of the Law. However, as I pointed out above, Paul said that believers continue to fulfill the Law of Moses after Yeshua’s death by obeying the command in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. James also repeated this command, even stating that it was from Scripture at a time when the only Scriptures available were the Old Testament, so it is very unlikely that he was referring to the Gospels. Many scholars believe that James’ letter was the first of all the New Testament writings.

As you can see, none of the possible interpretations of “till all be accomplished” in Matthew 5:18 stand up when the whole of Scripture is considered. According to Paul, the Law wasn’t abolished at the cross. All Old Testament prophecy has not been fulfilled. The heavens and the earth are still here.

In Matthew 5:17, Yeshua said that he had come to fulfill the Law, and I think we have to believe that he did that or else he failed in his mission. In the very next verse, he said that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all is accomplished, which can only mean that fulfilling the Law does not annul it or cause anything to pass from it. If both Paul and James taught that believers fulfill the Law by obeying it, why should we assume that Yeshua meant something different when he said he came to fulfill it?

One of the fundamental principles of Bible study is to let the Bible define its own terms. Of course, tradition and historical context can also be important, but ultimately, every biblical concept must be understood by how that concept is used and explained in the Bible itself.

What does the Bible say it means to “fulfill the Law”?

The Greek word translated “fulfill” in v17 is πληρόω (pleroo). It is often used to describe the fulfillment of a prophecy. The Torah is full of prophecies about the Messiah (Joseph’s entire life story is prophetic, for example), and Yeshua certainly fulfilled it in that way.

However, it is also frequently used to describe keeping the requirements of a commandment as when Yeshua, Paul, James, and John said that if we keep the commandments, we are loving one another, and if we are loving one another, then we will also be keeping (fulfilling) the commandments because the commandments are instruction in how to love. (See John 14:15, 14:21, Romans 8:4, 13:8-9, 2 Corinthians 10:6, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8, 1 John 5:2-2, and 2 John 1:6.)

Pleroo/filled-full is also used to describe something being filled up or made complete. Yeshua was filled with wisdom in Luke 2:40, valleys are filled in Luke 3:5, joy is made full in John 15:11, and Ananias’ heart is filled by Satan in Acts 5:3.

In no case does pleroo ever mean to nullify, cancel, or make anything “of no effect”. When applied to God’s commandments as given through Moses, it can only mean one of three things: 1) Fulfill their prophetic meaning, 2) Obey them, or 3) Fill or restore them with their intended meaning. Based on Yeshua’s own words throughout the Gospels and the Apostles teachings, “I have come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets” in Matthew 5:17 probably means all three, but it definitely cannot mean that Yeshua came to abolish, nullify, make obsolete…and any other synonym that people might use to get around Yeshua’s plain words in verse 18.

Our task from here is to reexamine the erroneous interpretations of verses that talk about “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” and “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”. See here for more thoughts on this and related topics: Objections to Keeping Torah.

* Since the Deuteronomy 30 prophecy also clearly states that the result of Israel’s circumcised hearts at some point in the future is obedience to Torah, God must still be pleased by his people obeying Moses’ instructions.

Posted on

What Is Circumcision of the Heart?

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. Deuteronomy 10:16

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Deuteronomy 10:16

Circumcise yourselves to YHWH; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.
Jeremiah 4:4

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Romans 2:29

(Please read the whole chapter for each of those verses to understand the full context. Click on each reference to access the chapters at Bible Gateway.)

But Paul Said…

Paul is often misunderstood to be against physical circumcision in all cases, but the full context of his letters show that can’t be the case. Rather, he is against circumcision in a misguided conversion to Judaism or the performance of any other rite or commandment as a condition for the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation.

Salvation is solely by the grace of God extended to those who put their faith in him. Circumcision is something that a believing man can do later if he is led to it by the Holy Spirit or if there is some practical reason, so long as he doesn’t believe it will make him more saved. There is no general command in Scripture for a grown man to be circumcised unless he is wants to eat the Passover, which is impossible to do outside of Jerusalem. Anyone external pressure for a grown man to be circumcised comes solely from other men, not from God.

If you’re not a priest going to serve in the Temple (you’re not), if you’re not going to eat a Passover lamb this year (extremely unlikely), and if you’re not an 8-day old baby boy (wow! reading already!?) then there is no good reason to get circumcised.

Now, having dispensed of that inevitable barrier to communication, let me get the actual point of this article…

What Does It Mean to Circumcise One’s Heart?

In Deuteronomy 10, Moses told the Israelites that, although God owns all of heaven and earth, he chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all their descendants as special objects of his love and attention. Because God chose Israel above all other peoples, he wanted them to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts “and stop being stiff-necked”.

He went on to say that God is mighty and awesome, above all other gods, and above all the petty bribery that the gods of the nations demanded from them. Yet, despite his awesome power and the universal scope of his awareness, he gives special attention to orphans, widows, and landless above the special attention he already gives to Israel.

Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19

The essence of heart circumcision seems to be in the humility to accept the attentions of the Almighty and to serve those who have the least power of all.

Because of Adam’s sin, our world can be hard and compassionless. It’s tempting to see all impoverished or otherwise disadvantaged people as deserving their state–an attitude encouraged by some of the world’s largest religions–and therefore also deserving lesser treatment by society and even by law.

While it’s true that poverty is perpetuated by bad choices, Scripture also tells us that we are all sinners according to God’s standards and equally deserving of death. A circumcised heart perceives its own unworthiness, but gratefully accepts and returns God’s love in spite of that. It not only loves God, who is infinitely more deserving, but also loves the poor, homeless, and even the criminal.

God wants us, who have received undeserved mercy, to extend undeserved mercy in turn, a mercy which enables the recipient to stand back up and try again and again to make better choices.

Be Holy, Even As I Am Holy

God wants us to be holy (set apart for sacred purpose) just as he is holy. In Leviticus chapters 11, 19, and 20, this means keeping God’s commandments, especially in regards to avoiding the pagan practices of idolatry, necromancy, disrespecting parents, sexual immorality, and eating animals whose meat God finds detestable.

Peter reiterated this expectation of holiness through obedience:

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
1 Peter 1:14-16

It’s clearly a good thing to keep God’s commandments, and while outward obedience will bring circumcision of the flesh (at least for boys born into the faith), it cannot, by itself, bring circumcision of the heart.

The truth is exactly the opposite. A hard heart is like a hardened clay soil that breaks ploughs and starves seedlings. The Word sprouts quickly but withers away because it can’t put down roots. It is a haven for brambles and wild grass, but hostile to anything that can produce good fruit. Only a circumcised heart can accept the seed of God’s instructions and allow it to produce a harvest worthy of the land owner.

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision [of the flesh] be regarded as circumcision [of the heart]? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
Romans 2:26-27

The Hearts of Your Children

There is another important aspect of heart circumcision that I want to bring to your attention.

The manner of circumcision of the flesh was not arbitrary. God chose the skin that would be cut removed in part because it symbolizes one of the core promises of his covenant with Abraham:

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you….This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Genesis 17:7, 10-11

Abraham’s physical descendants all passed through the cut of his physical circumcision. All of his promised descendants inherit the covenant by which they were promised, but they are commanded to circumcise their sons in turn.

If you are a son of Abraham, then your sons must be circumcised on the eighth day. This doesn’t give them eternal salvation or forgive their sins, but it does make God’s promises to Abraham theirs to reject.

Circumcision of the heart follows the same pattern as circumcision of the flesh.

And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Deuteronomy 30:6

Just as Moses told us to keep God’s commandments as we work to circumcise our hearts, he also told us to teach God’s commandments to our children.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7

Circumcision of the heart is a process that each person must take on for himself, but parents have a responsibility to set their children on the right path, to teach them to fear and love YHWH, to cherish his commandments, and to be kind to all people. In doing so, we enable them to inherit the New Covenant established in the blood of Yeshua.

How Does a Heart Become Circumcised?

Physical circumcision is relatively quick and painless. We circumcise our sons when they are eight days old, before they are old enough to remember the pain. Circumcision of the heart is a much longer and more painful process. It begins and ends with obedience, not for the sake of being righteous or special or staying out of trouble, but for the sake of the Law-Giver.

And now, Israel, what does YHWH your God require of you, but to fear YHWH your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deuteronomy 10:12

And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.
2 John 1:6

God wants our fearful devotion and our love. He wants to be the center of our thoughts, motives, and our entire lives. Such devotion requires the breaking of our pride, our independence, and even our very identity.

If a commandment is a burden, then it either hasn’t yet done its work on your heart, or you are keeping it for the wrong reason. A resentful or prideful obedience is not obedience at all. Refocus on the loving kindness of the Father who gave us the Law through Moses, of the Son who gave us his very life to enable our obedience without fear of condemnation, and of the Spirit who teaches us how to live, comforts us when we fail or are persecuted for our obedience, and guides us onto better paths.

As we learn to keep God’s commandments out of love for him, his Spirit works through our desire to obey to draw us closer to him. Through the keeping of commandments with a right heart, we are disciplined and pruned. The heart will become more right, and we will learn more perfect obedience, understanding that the heart of every commandment is love.

The secret to a circumcised heart, ready to receive God’s instructions, is in recognizing that we are no more deserving of his attention than anyone else, that nothing we could ever do could earn his affections, and yet God still loves us more than all the rest of creation. When we love him enough in return to submit to his commandments and when we see a reflection of his perfection and our own failures in the least of all people, we will be on the path.

For more information see this video from 119 Ministries…

Posted on

Acts 15, revisited

Are Christians obligated to keep the Law of Moses? Should Christians study the Torah?

People frequently point to Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem as an argument against Christians keeping Torah. “Peter, James, and the other Apostles said that gentile converts only need to keep these four rules, so we don’t need to keep the Law of Moses.” The obvious counter is that, if eating food that has been sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, eating animals that have been strangled, and consuming blood (Acts 15:20) is the full moral standard for Christians, then we are free to dishonor our parents, thumb our nose at traffic signs, lie, cheat, steal, and curse God. Yet nobody believes that!

Clearly the ruling of the Jerusalem Council is just a baseline for new converts in the context of the pagan Roman Empire, who already had a basic understanding of right and wrong.

Here’s another statement extracted from a conversation from a long time ago, in an Internet forum far, far away:

Jesus’ entire ministry on earth was centered around clarifying the law, and in many places he criticizes those who live by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. an example is the “good samaritan parable”. The laws were given to the Jews in order to keep them ceremoniously clean and set aside for God. So when Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, his blood sacrifice has fulfilled the spirit of the law by making us clean before God and setting us aside for him. I believe as much is stated in John 1:1-14.

I do not believe that Acts 15 is suggesting that Christians can lie, steal, etc. etc., because such things were not included in the letter. Rather I believe that as Jesus said, the sum of the laws and the prophets, the spirit of them, is to love the Lord you God will all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.

-Mr. B.A.D.

I don’t think that Mr. B.A.D. is very far from the truth here. Yeshua did spend much of his time correcting misunderstandings of the Law. God did give the Torah to Israel to set them apart from other peoples. Yeshua’s life and sacrifice did fulfill the spirit of the Law. The sum of the Law and the Prophets is to love God and neighbor.

But this is an incomplete understanding. Let’s look at each of these points in more detail.

Yeshua criticized those who live by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Mr. B.A.D. is talking about the Pharisees in particular, I think. Here are some of the specific complaints Yeshua had against them:

  1. They replaced the commandments of God with the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)
  2. They held others to a higher standard than that to which they held themselves. (Matthew 23:4)
  3. Their obedience was done mostly for show and not out of love for anyone but themselves. (Matthew 23:5-7)
  4. Their false teachings made it more difficult for anyone else to know the truth. (Matthew 23:13)
  5. They abused the poor and weak. (Matthew 23:14)
  6. They didn’t make disciples for God, but disciples for themselves. (Matthew 23:15)
  7. They had their priorities all wrong. (Matthew 23:16-22)
  8. They were scrupulous on the minutiae of the Law while they ignored the most important commandments. (Matthew 23:23-24)
  9. Their public behavior was at complete odds with their private behavior and with their hearts. (Matthew 23:25-31)

It seems to me that all of this can be summed up in a single word: hypocrisy. Their problem wasn’t that they were obsessed with the letter of the Law. Their problem was an obsessions with appearing to keep the Law. They were so concerned with this appearance that the Law itself wasn’t enough for them. “Love your neighbor as yourself” isn’t showy enough for the Pharisaical mind. They had to make up more and more rules to follow so that everyone could see how very righteous they were, but in adding to God’s Law they were breaking the very thing they pretended to keep. They were hypocrites from their white-washed facades to their rotted cores.

I think Mr B.A.D.’s main point here is entirely correct. A preoccupation with the letter of the Law to the detriment of the spirit of the Law will destroy you, because it will tend to lead you to less obedience in the end, rather than more. It is easy to get lost in the details and forget what is most important. The individual commandments are not the goal, but only individual stones in the road. The goal is Yeshua, and we would all do well to keep our focus on him rather than on precisely measuring our tithes of mint and cumin.

The laws were given to the Jews in order to keep them ceremonially clean, and set aside for God.

The Law was given for many reasons, one of which was to keep the Israelites separate from the pagan nations around them, but this separateness is really more of an effect of the Law than an intent. God gave Israel the Law to teach them to behave better than the Canaanites, not just differently. The specific commandments weren’t arbitrary. God didn’t randomly pick which animals would be clean and unclean, or which fabrics they could and couldn’t mix.

Israel is a holy nation because God chose them from among all other nations to be his special possession. Holiness means “set apart for divine purpose”. Since he made them holy by election, he also wanted them to be holy by behavior. The goal of behaving differently isn’t just to stand out. The Pharisees were great at standing out from the crowd, but terrible at obeying God’s Law. Rather, the goal of God’s rules about behaving differently than the pagans, was to make Israel more beautiful and pleasing to him.

Why should Israel not eat pigs? Because eating pigs is detestable to God. Why should Israel not wear clothes made of wool and linen woven together? Because, whether we understand why or not, God hates it.

But that’s not the only reason God gave Israel the Law.

Paul wrote that the Law was also given to define sin for the whole world (Romans 3:19-20).

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:19-20

The whole world–not only the Jews–is accountable to God for their disobedience to the Law. As John wrote, sin is lawlessness, and he didn’t mean the laws of Rome or Babylon. He meant God’s Law. Sin is, by definition, breaking God’s Law. Now that we are saved from condemnation and our sins have been forgiven, are we supposed to forget what sin is and behave in whatever manner we feel is right? Of course not! God’s forgiveness of past sins is not a license to commit future sins.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 3:31

Now that we have been separated from the world, elevated to the status of a holy people along with the native-born Israelite, we demonstrate our gratefulness and maintain that separation by behaving differently than we behaved when we were still in sin. “Be holy, even as I am holy” in 1 Peter 1:16 is a quote from multiple passages in Leviticus. We have been made holy by divine action, and so God requires us to live accordingly by following the rules he gave for that purpose.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-18

So when Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, his blood sacrifice has fulfilled the spirit of the law by making us clean before God and setting us aside for him.

When Yeshua died on the cross he fulfilled the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself more certainly than most of us ever will, but that doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility of continuing to love our neighbors as ourselves. He took our sin upon him and shed his own blood to fulfill the Law’s requirement for the death of murderers, Sabbath breakers, and the sexually immoral. Yeshua’s blood atones for us and removes us from under the condemnation of the Law, but that is still not a license to ignore God’s standards of behavior. He didn’t die so that we can eat bacon cheeseburgers and sleep with whomever we choose. He died so that we can have eternal life despite our failings.

Acts 15 is not suggesting that Christians can lie, steal, etc etc because such things were not included in the letter.

I agree, and this is something that many people overlook when they read that passage. For the sake of theological argument they interpret James’ ruling as the definitive list of moral behavior for Christians, but then say that Christians also have to keep a long list of other rules. This demonstrates that they don’t even believe their own arguments. Very few people actually think the apostles were really giving new converts permission to steal so long as they didn’t drink blood. The only logical conclusion is that the apostles were giving a starting point and expected the converts to continue learning and improving their behavior from there. What curriculum did they expect these gentiles to use for furthering their education in morality and religion? Torah.

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.
Acts 15:21

The controversy in Acts 15 was never about whether the Law applied to gentile believers in Yeshua–Romans 3:19 makes it clear that the Law applies to all people, believers or not–but about whether obedience to the Law was necessary for salvation. We are no longer “under the Law” because we have been set free from its power to condemn, but we are still accountable to God for keeping his commandments and maintaining his standard of acceptable behavior.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Acts 15:1

Keeping the Law of Moses cannot remove the guilt of prior sins nor earn you eternal salvation, but if viewed properly, it can improve your life, your community, and your relationship with God. “Be holy, because I am holy,” God said, not because he wants us to be weird, but because he loves some behaviors and hates others. If we are the Bride of Christ, we should behave like it. What man wants his bride to wear filthy rags and smell like an outhouse?

Posted on

How Do the Ten Commandments Relate to the Christian?

Should Christians keep the Ten Commandments?

A long-time Internet acquaintance asked a couple of questions in an open forum many years ago, and I reproduce her questions and my responses here…

1) How should Christians regard the ten commandments? (Not rhetorical; I really want to know.)

Paul told the Roman Christians that the Law defines sin. Without the written commandments, our ability to discern what is and is not sin is seriously hobbled. He specifically used one of the ten commandments to illustrate his point.

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

As Paul pointed out, it is impossible to sin by keeping the Law, aka Torah. (Of course, it is possible to sin by keeping one part of the Torah, while ignoring another part as the Pharisees did.) This is because sin is, by definition, the breaking of the Law, not the keeping of it (1 John 3:4).

You can think of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 as a summary of all of the rest of the Law (sometimes numbered at 613, by I think that count is dubious), and they are in turn are summarized by the Two Commandments that Yeshua quoted in Matthew 22 and Mark 12:

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind [Deuteronomy 6:4-5]. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself [Leviticus 19:18]. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:35-40

Allow me to illustrate with a short table.

The TwoLove GodLove Neighbor
An example from the TenHave no other godsDo not covet
An example from the 613Do not worship YHWH in the same way the pagans worship their gods.Do not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain

Because we love God, we will have no other gods. If we have no other gods, we will worship him in the ways he wants to be worshiped and not the way those other gods want. Because we love our neighbor, we will not covet those things that belong to him. If we do not covet our neighbor’s possessions, we will not steal his crops.

Every Christian knows –or ought to know–that sin is a bad thing. If that’s a point of contention, then we have much deeper problems than whether or not the Law defines sin. And if the Law defines sin as Paul and John both said, then it logically follows that we ought to be studying and keeping the Law. Not because a single mistake will send us to hell, but because we owe it to God. How can anyone say he loves God and then ignore his commandments? Or do they really believe that Paul was lying when he said that all of the commandments are summed up in love?

2) As a relatively new convert, one thing that’s also confused me is how to answer people who ask why Christians include the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. I’ve encountered Jews who didn’t know that we include the Torah in the Christian Bible and study it in church. They were curious about this practice, but I wasn’t sure I had the correct explanation for them. Is it to establish the context for the New Testament?

One of the earliest major heresies that the Christian church had to deal with is called Marcionism. In some ways it was the opposite of the Judaizers that Paul dealt with through much of his ministry. Where the Judaizers added laws and traditions on top of God’s Law, the Marcionites threw out the entire Old Testament and much of the New as well. They taught that the God of the Hebrews was a malevolent deity who actually hated the Jews and gave them the Torah as a punishment. Jesus was a new God who overthrew YHWH and all of his oppressive laws. They kept Paul’s writings because it was easy to twist his words around to justify their lawlessness. These were the people that Peter warned so strongly against when he wrote,

2 Peter 3:16 …There are some things in [Paul’s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

This Marcionism is almost identical with the feel-good, no-rules Christianity of today. Marcion is alive and well in your home town and every place where Christians reject God’s word as outdated and superseded by a new gospel of “love” unfounded on any real principles or standards, but on feelings and that most deceitful of all voices: the heart.

What we call the Old Testament was the only set of scriptures the first century church had for many years. The apostles referred to them constantly throughout their letters. Yeshua preached from the Torah and the Prophets. Indeed much of the New Testament is completely incomprehensible without a solid foundation in the Old Testament.

The thing that baffles me is that most Christian churches really do understand this and yet they still ignore the Old Testament, especially the Torah, and so they keep falling for the same old lies. It’s truly a spiritual psychosis.

Should Christians keep the Ten Commandments? If they claim to follow the two greatest commandments, they absolutely should.

Posted on

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (the short version)

I shared this with my subscribers in May of 2021, but now I’m making it available here for everyone.

Romans Is Pro-Torah

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is among the most pro-Torah books of the entire New Testament, but it is commonly taught as if it’s one of the most anti-Torah!

Many people understand Romans 14 to say that all of God’s instructions concerning clean and unclean meat and the weekly Sabbath are no longer relevant to the Christian. They say that those who still cling to such distinctions are “weak in faith” because they aren’t trusting in Yeshua’s death and resurrection to fulfill all of the requirements of the Law. They make a point, in direct contradiction to Paul’s instructions according to their own understanding, of berating any brother who disagrees, shaming them, and even banishing them from their fellowships.

This chapter is almost always taken as a complete literary unit that stands on its own without reference to the surrounding text, to the rest of Scripture, or to historical context. In that light (or lack of light), it’s easy to make any passage say something contrary to its intended meaning. But after reading thirteen chapters of Paul repeatedly tell his readers that keeping the Law is a good thing–avoid sin, uphold the Law, live righteously, obey the commandments, etc.–does it really make sense that he would suddenly switch tack and say the exact opposite?

Since Paul didn’t write anything in this letter about pork or rodents, but he did write about vegetarianism, it makes much more sense to assume he is addressing eating meat versus eating only vegetables. And since he made no mention of the Sabbath or any other of God’s appointed days, doesn’t it make more sense that “one person esteems one day as better than another” in the middle of a conversation about food is about which days of the week are best for fasting?

To many readers today, that seems like a silly argument–and it is!–but it was a serious controversy in the first century, and Christians were still debating it decades later when the Didache was written. Some religious groups fasted on one day of the week and some on another. This Christian fasted on Thursday so that people wouldn’t think he was part of that new cult from Persia, while that Christian fasted on Wednesday so people wouldn’t think he was a Jew. When you could be ostracized, beaten, or even killed for being associated with the wrong religion, your choice of a fasting day becomes a much bigger issue than it might seem in today’s America.

Did this ever come up as a possible explanation for Romans 14 at Wednesday night Bible study? Probably not.

Romans, Chapter by Chapter

In order to get a more accurate understanding of what Paul was trying to communicate, I have written this brief survey of the book, with short summaries of each chapter.

The next time you read Romans, refer back to this survey to keep each chapter in the context of the whole letter, and I hope it will aid you in understanding some difficult texts and in refuting the antinomian lies we have all inherited and even internalized to some extent.

Chapter 1 – The righteous live by faith, but the unrighteous ignore the Law of God and their own consciences in order to do what they please. By consistently behaving contrary to what they know to be right, they eventually destroy their ability to make that distinction at all and earn the enmity of God and the condemnation of his Law.

Chapter 2 – God is just to condemn those who behave wickedly and to rescue those who behave righteously regardless of their ethnic origins. It isn’t enough to say the right things, you must also do them. All those who obey God out of love and faith are living up to the name of Yehudah (meaning “praised”), whether they are born into Israel or not.

Chapter 3 – The Jews have a great advantage in that they have inherited the Scriptures, but everyone is accountable to God for his own sin, and everyone sins. Fortunately, we are not made right with God by the merit of our works, but by our faith in the redemption purchased by Yeshua (Jesus). We don’t obey God’s Law in order to earn salvation, but because we have faith in him.

Chapter 4 – The covenant of salvation was given to Abraham for his faith, not for his obedience. Circumcision is not a condition of the covenant, but a sign of it, and his heirs also receive the covenant without regard to their prior obedience. If the covenant depended on obedience, we would all be lost, and now we too can inherit Abraham’s covenant through our faith in God.

Chapter 5 – Yeshua’s death enabled our reconciliation with God. The world was condemned by the sin of one man and saved by the obedience of Yeshua. The Law magnifies our individual sins, but it also magnifies the grace of God which rescued us from death earned by sin to eternal life earned by his righteousness.

Chapter 6 – Through his death, Yeshua rescued us from the eternal death we deserved because of our sins. The only appropriate response is to repent from all sin and live according to God’s Law. If we go on living in sin, we will be enslaved again to it. He set us free from slavery to sin in order to become slaves of righteousness to God. We obey God’s Law in response to his free gift of eternal life.

Chapter 7 – Through the physical death of Messiah, we died spiritually to the condemnation of the Law. Through his resurrection, we are enabled to live and bear fruit in righteousness. The Law defines sin, but our old sinful natures gravitate to that which is opposed to God, turning the Law that was meant for life into death through our disobedience. The Law does not bring death, but our violation of the Law does. Even while we believe in God and long to obey him in our hearts, a part of us is always in rebellion, drawing us back into slavery to sin.

Chapter 8 – Yeshua released us from the condemnation we deserved, enabling the Spirit of God to live in us, manifesting in a mind focused on the Spirit and living righteously rather than on the flesh and living according to its sinful desires. The flesh constantly pulls us back, but we have been made children of God and only have to cry out to him. His Spirit helps us and intercedes for us, gradually transforming us to be more like Yeshua through our trials and conflicts. We may suffer all kinds of external trials, but none of these things can ever separate us from the Love of God.

Chapter 9 – God’s promises to Israel are certain, but not all who are descended from Israel are counted as Israel. Believing gentiles are counted by God as his people, and only a remnant of natural Israel will be saved. Those Israelites who tried to earn their salvation through the Law will lose it because they didn’t obey through faith.

Chapter 10 – Messiah is the goal of obedience to the Law for all who obey in faith. The Law promotes a better life, but it is only through faith and submission to Yeshua that we are truly saved. The natural descendants of Israel can’t appeal to ignorance because all of Scripture points to Yeshua.

Chapter 11 – God has not rejected natural Israel. He will always preserve a remnant of those who believe in him rather than in their own obedience. Some natural branches of the tree of Israel have been cut off and believing gentiles have been grafted in, but God can as easily cut off those gentiles again and graft the natural back in. The whole tree of Israel will be saved by this process of cutting out the bad and grafting in the good, but God’s promises to the descendants of Israel can never be revoked, and he will forgive those who repent. We have all sinned and God shows mercy to us all equally.

Chapter 12 – God showed mercy to forgive your sins, so don’t live as if you’re still part of the world. Don’t be proud in your salvation or in the spiritual gifts that God has given. We are all one body and we are all important to its health and function. Work for each other’s good. Live in harmony with everyone as much as possible with humility and without prejudice. Respond to animosity with kindness, forbearance, and honor.

Chapter 13 – Submit to whatever authorities are over you where you are and give them the respect and honor due their position. All of God’s Law can be summarized in the single commandment, love your neighbor as yourself. We are living in dark days, so live in the light, by living in obedience to God’s commandments and showing love to each other. Live like Yeshua lived rather than giving into the sinful desires of your flesh.

Chapter 14 – Welcome those whose faith is not as strong as yours and don’t berate them for their weaknesses. Don’t get caught up in worthless arguments over whether to eat meat or be a vegetarian and on what day to fast completely. Live according to your own consciences, not condemning each other for differences of opinion. Our lives are no longer our own, but we all live and die for the sake of God. None of us are perfect, and we will all answer for our own failings. Be considerate of each other’s opinions and don’t tempt or offend a brother contrary to his conscience. Food and drink are relatively minor issues in the Kingdom of God. It’s not a sin to eat meat or drink wine, but don’t do it if it creates a problem for a brother.

Chapter 15 – We should make allowances for the weaknesses of our brothers. We should learn from the example of Yeshua and from the Scriptures and may God help us to live in unity. Messiah became a servant for all, both Jew and Gentile. Overall, you’re doing well, even if you need some correction. I will visit you when I can after I go to Jerusalem but pray for my deliverance from unbelievers there.

Chapter 16 – Be generous and welcoming to the men and women who serve the Kingdom in their various capacities and give my greetings to all those in your community who also work faithfully for the Kingdom. Do not allow anyone to cause division among you but remain faithful to God in the preaching of the Gospel and obedience to his commandments.

Conclusion

Paul’s Letter to the Romans is very clear in some ways and very cloudy in others. Chapter 14 is especially confusing for many Christians for two reasons: 1) They have inherited an antinomian (anti-Law) view of Jesus and Paul, and so they interpret everything in that light, and 2) At least half of the conversation is missing, so it’s easy to fill in the gaps with what we’ve been taught rather than what Scripture actually says. Reading our own assumptions into a text is known as eisegesis, and it’s always a bad idea.

Paul’s original readers understood the full context of his words because he wrote them in response to a controversy they were experiencing at that moment. In order to understand what he intended for them to get out of his letter, we need to separate what we think he meant from what he actually wrote. Once we are able to do that, we are free to consider his words within the context of the whole of Scripture (not just the New Testament or Paul’s other letters) and of the controversies that we know were an issue at the time (not just the controversies we’ve been told were an issue).

Taken at face value, Romans 14 isn’t really that difficult to understand and isn’t anti-Torah at all.

Posted on

Gentiles and the Law in Romans 2

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Romans 2:13. A Torah study for Christians.

In another attempt to say that Christians have no obligation to keep the Law of Moses (aka God’s Law), Freddy wrote, “Paul tells us in Romans that the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what law empells them to do so they are a law unto themselves.”

Here is the passage to which Freddy is alluding:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:13-16 ESV

Clearly there is nothing here that implies that being “a law unto themselves” excuses Gentiles from keeping the Law. In fact, Paul said exactly the opposite in this very passage: God will judge them according to their obedience of what they understand of his Law, even if they don’t know that it is his Law. Let me paraphrase and expand this passage to clarify what I believe Paul intended:

Nobody is righteous in God’s eyes merely because he knows the Law. The righteous, those who are justified by God’s mercy, are not those who know what the Law says, but those who actually do what the Law says. Consider Gentiles who have never heard Moses taught in a synagogue. When they instinctively do what God commanded us to do in the Law, even though they know nothing of Moses, it is as if they are Moses, the stone tablets, and the scrolls in themselves. Their actions show that, in their hearts, they already know the basic dos-and-donts of the Law. Not just their visible deeds, but also when their consciences prompt them to do good or make them feel guilty for doing wrong. Since at some level they know what is right and wrong, that knowledge will serve as a witness to their obedience or disobedience to the Law when God, through Jesus Christ, judges all of our hidden deeds and thoughts, as the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven requires.
Romans 2:13-16 (Paraphrased and Amplified)

In other words, at the final judgment, God will hold everyone–Jew or Gentile–accountable for their disobedience to what they instinctively understand of his Law, whether they have read the Bible or not. As Paul pointed out in the previous chapter, Romans 1, everyone is born with a basic understanding of right and wrong as defined by God’s eternal Law. By refusing to heed our conscience, we gradually silence it, but our willful deafness will not be a defense. We can’t claim ignorance of the Law today when we knew yesterday.

Posted on

The Curse and Curses of the Law

A few thoughts on The Curse of the Law and the many individual and national curses within the Law…

The Curse of the Law is the eternal condemnation warranted by every individual who fails to live by God’s standards of behavior. Since nobody except Yeshua has ever lived a sinless life, this curse would apply to everyone alike if God had not made a way for us to escape it. No amount of obedience to the Law can ever deflect the curse. Once the soul is stained with sin, no amount of obedience without faith in God can ever cleanse it.

The Grace of God is his willingness to forgive our sins and make a way for us to be reconciled to him, IF we repent of sin (behavior that is contrary to the Law) and put our full faith and allegiance in him. Yeshua takes our curse upon him, and his blood cleanses what we could not. This happens outside the provisions of the Law because the Law was never intended to provide a way of permanently restoring a man’s soul to God. (This is what Paul meant when he wrote “The righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law” in Romans 3:21.)

The Curse of the Law and the individual curses contained in the Law are different things. The former is eternal and only individual, while the latter are temporal and both individual and national.

A person who has been forgiven his sins and has been brought into relationship with God is not free to behave in any way he pleases. Absolution from a crime is not a license to commit more crimes.

Yeshua said that not a single mark will be removed from the Law, and that includes the various curses for individuals who commit serious crimes and the national curses for failing to keep God’s Law collectively.

These are curses in the here and now, in the temporal world, not the world to come. A promise of resurrection and eternal life in the future doesn’t mean there are no (or should not be) consequences for idolatry, murder, and sexual perversion today. Crime must be punished (cursed) by God’s people or else God’s people will eventually suffer national punishment (curses) that will be much more severe.

The Law actually predicted that Israel would fail to maintain God’s standards and would suffer the consequences. Those national curses are still in effect today as most of Israel remains in exile among the nations and will only finally return in full when the nation returns to obedience.

Posted on

The End of the Law

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4) Did Jesus come to put an end to the Law? Or is he the aim of the Law?

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4

I can’t tell you how many times someone has quoted this verse to me as “proof” that Jesus (also known as Yeshua) annulled God’s Law. At first glance, it looks like a killer argument. QED. How much clearer could it be?

Eh. Not so fast.

Remember that not a single word of the Bible was written in English and, by the very nature of human languages, no translation can ever be perfect. The key word in this verse seems to be “end”, so lets take a look at the original Greek.

τελος γαρ νομου χριστος εις δικαιοσυνην παντι τω πιστευοντι

The first word, telos, is the word translated into English as “end”.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions defines it thusly:

1) end
1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time)
1b) the end
1b1) the last in any succession or series
1b2) eternal
1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue
1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose
2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)

Termination of the Law would seem to be a reasonable translation, but Thayer gives us a number of other options too, including “aim” and “purpose”. “The aim of the Law” also seems pretty reasonable to me. Coincidentally, the English word “end” can be interpreted either way as well.

But is telos used in the sense of “aim” and “purpose” anywhere else in Scripture? Several places, in fact, by Paul, James, and Peter.

Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.
(James 5:11)

Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
(1 Peter 1:8-9)

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
(1 Timothy 1:5)

In the above three quotes, I bolded the English words used to translate the Greek word telos. Can the Lord ever be terminated (James 5:11)? Is our faith terminated by our salvation (1 Peter 1:8-9)? Should we stop avoiding pointless controversies once we have attained love (1 Timothy 1:5)? Of course, not! In these cases, translating telos as “termination” would be absurd.

So there is ample precedent for translating telos as aim or purpose instead of end, but how can we know for certain which one Paul meant in Romans 10:4?

Easy. Jesus said so.

Do not think that I have come to abolish (καταλυσαι: tear down, destroy, dissolve, overthrow) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (πληρωσαι: make full, complete, carry out, perfect) them.
(Matthew 5:17)

Does it really make sense for Yeshua to say “I have not come to tear down the Law, but to put an end to it”? No. If we interpret Romans 10:4 to mean that Yeshua ended the Law, then we make his own words in Matthew 5:17 into nonsense. However, if we interpret Romans to say “The aim of the Law is Christ…”, it agrees with Matthew perfectly: Yeshua did not come to terminate the Law, but to perfect it.

“The end of the Law” means exactly the opposite of what many people today claim that it means.

And if my word isn’t good enough, here’s what a few venerable Christian commentaries have said concerning Romans 10:4:

  • Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: For Christ is the end — the object or aim.
  • Matthew Henry: The design of the law was to lead people to Christ.
  • Geneva Bible: The law itself points to Christ, that those who believe in him should be saved.
  • Adam Clarke: The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ; it cannot save, but it leaves us at his door, where alone salvation is to be found.
  • Albert Barnes: It also means the design or object which is had in view; the principal purpose for which it was undertaken.
  • John Wesley: The scope and aim of it. It is the very design of the law, to bring men to believe in Christ for justification and salvation.

QED, indeed.

So, let’s have an end of this foolish controversy so that we may allow the Law to fulfill its manifold purposes: to teach men about sin and their need for a Savior, to illustrate the identity and purpose of that Savior, and to show us how to love God and one another. All of these together are the telos of the Torah.

 

I recorded a video to go with this article!