As I have mentioned before in another thread of mine, there is a growing number of Gentile believers who choose to keep the Jewish cultural traditions of Sabbath keeping, dietary laws and Jewish observances, such as feasts and festivals. Sounds harmless, right?
This growing trend of Christians today, who profess faith in Jesus, but who are not of Jewish ethnicity or descent, and yet choosing to do the above listed things. Again, innocent sounding, right?
The problem I have encountered when coming into contact with these groups is that most of them believe God commanded them to do so. To them, these things are more than just Jewish traditions, but that they are allegedly biblical commandments for us today who are in Christ.
I won't call out the names by which they identify themselves because I don't want to advertise for them.
This mindset can be, and is dangerous. Please keep in mind that it's one thing to observe and practice those things in the Mosaic Law out of a sense of freedom to do so, but when any teaching is conveyed as compulsory upon others as a moral obligation originating from the Lord our God, that's an entirely different matter.
Exodus 19:3-6
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
This was not spoken to the Canaanites, the Tishites or any other the numerous nations all in and around the promised land. It was specifically aimed at the children of Israel for the PURPOSE of setting them apart, to be a peculiar people, and a nation of priests.
As you can also see in the above verses, the requirement was laid down, and the promised reward for obedience offered. Therefore the Mosaic Law itself clearly targeting specifically the "house of Jacob." Any other interpretation that is thrown into the wording as an eisegetical addition to the text what clearly is not there, that's a level of intellectual dishonesty that tricks others into thinking a theology whereby one is left with the equation of:
Christ + Mosaic Law = Salvation
This is absolutely a false narrative. Most of the Torah followers will deny that equation, claiming that salvation comes only through Christ, and that is indeed the truth. The half truth mixture happens when add the element of the Mosaic Law into the mix. They never want to admit that their teaching of NOT obeying the Mosaic Law is allegedly akin to disobedience, which then nullifies salvation.
Folks, let's keep this simple and consistent with the scriptures, shall we? The biblical definition for "disobedience" in any biblical context, where morality is concerned, is this:
1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 But we know that the (Mosaic) law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the (Mosaic) law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Those who practice such things are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.
Therefore:
Christ + Mosaic Law = Salvation
That is the inevitable outflow of that doctrine.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
I added (Mosaic) in the 1 Timothy quotes above because the Greek word 'nomos' is a reference to, in this context and grammatical application, the Mosaic Law. Notice that Paul mentioned specific items of sin, which are outlawed in the Mosaic Law, and therefore defined as sins. Nowhere is any other element of the Mosaic Law upheld in this context as binding upon anyone, but that the disobedient are those who are among the guilty perpetrators of these violations of God's moral absolutes.
So, the problem rests in declaring as disobedient all others who do not adhere to the rest of the Mosaic Law that is nowhere commanded of Gentile believers anywhere in the Gospels nor the epistles. The accusers do the Michael Jackson side-slip when their own guilt is pointed out tot them for not offering up burnt sacrifices and many other of the 613 laws outlined in the Mosaic Law. Their thinking is that those things that cannot be lived out due to the lack of a temple and priesthood is ample reason for remaining free from the accusation of disobedience. What they miss is that, had it been the Lord's will for adherence to such things, the Lord would have already provided for a way to live that law in obedience.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Notice the wording that says a change "...OF the Law," not IN the Law. Christ, being our High Priest, was not of the tribe of Levi, so there obviously was indeed a change in the priesthood, which has led to a change in the Law.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Again, if the Gentiles were also bound to the Mosaic Law, then they too would have been of mention in this prophesy, but it is completely silent toward any inclusion of Gentile believers or otherwise.
Hebrews 8:8, 13
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: ...
13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
Any and all gyrations and wiggling to try and squirm out from under the enormous weight of what this is actually saying is a wasted effort. It is futile. It irritates legalists to no end having to admit the Mosaic Law is confined within the constraints of a covenant, which was violated almost from day one, given the stiff-necked disobedience that characterized the Israelites.
The Mosaic Law was a covenant established with the 'house of Jacob," not all the rest of the nations of the world. Exodus 19 verses quoted above bear that out in clear and unmistakable language.
Now, granted, there is a foundational, timeless and borderless Law of God upon which ALL the various covenants of Law have been built, which includes the laws, statutes and commands Abraham obeyed, as stated in Genesis 26, the Mosaic Law, and the New Covenant Laws and commands established by Christ. What Abraham was given to obey, they are gone. The Mosaic Law is gone, and we now have the New Covenant, all of which are derived from God's Law. The main difference is that the Mosaic Law had many things added to them by the Lord to govern culture, diet, sin COVERING, and observances, which are not timeless elements that carry with them any moral implications outside of the people at whom they were aimed, and that the people themselves agreed that they would obey, and didn't.
So, what are your thoughts?
MM
This growing trend of Christians today, who profess faith in Jesus, but who are not of Jewish ethnicity or descent, and yet choosing to do the above listed things. Again, innocent sounding, right?
The problem I have encountered when coming into contact with these groups is that most of them believe God commanded them to do so. To them, these things are more than just Jewish traditions, but that they are allegedly biblical commandments for us today who are in Christ.
I won't call out the names by which they identify themselves because I don't want to advertise for them.
This mindset can be, and is dangerous. Please keep in mind that it's one thing to observe and practice those things in the Mosaic Law out of a sense of freedom to do so, but when any teaching is conveyed as compulsory upon others as a moral obligation originating from the Lord our God, that's an entirely different matter.
Exodus 19:3-6
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
This was not spoken to the Canaanites, the Tishites or any other the numerous nations all in and around the promised land. It was specifically aimed at the children of Israel for the PURPOSE of setting them apart, to be a peculiar people, and a nation of priests.
As you can also see in the above verses, the requirement was laid down, and the promised reward for obedience offered. Therefore the Mosaic Law itself clearly targeting specifically the "house of Jacob." Any other interpretation that is thrown into the wording as an eisegetical addition to the text what clearly is not there, that's a level of intellectual dishonesty that tricks others into thinking a theology whereby one is left with the equation of:
Christ + Mosaic Law = Salvation
This is absolutely a false narrative. Most of the Torah followers will deny that equation, claiming that salvation comes only through Christ, and that is indeed the truth. The half truth mixture happens when add the element of the Mosaic Law into the mix. They never want to admit that their teaching of NOT obeying the Mosaic Law is allegedly akin to disobedience, which then nullifies salvation.
Folks, let's keep this simple and consistent with the scriptures, shall we? The biblical definition for "disobedience" in any biblical context, where morality is concerned, is this:
1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 But we know that the (Mosaic) law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the (Mosaic) law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Those who practice such things are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.
Therefore:
Christ + Mosaic Law = Salvation
That is the inevitable outflow of that doctrine.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
I added (Mosaic) in the 1 Timothy quotes above because the Greek word 'nomos' is a reference to, in this context and grammatical application, the Mosaic Law. Notice that Paul mentioned specific items of sin, which are outlawed in the Mosaic Law, and therefore defined as sins. Nowhere is any other element of the Mosaic Law upheld in this context as binding upon anyone, but that the disobedient are those who are among the guilty perpetrators of these violations of God's moral absolutes.
So, the problem rests in declaring as disobedient all others who do not adhere to the rest of the Mosaic Law that is nowhere commanded of Gentile believers anywhere in the Gospels nor the epistles. The accusers do the Michael Jackson side-slip when their own guilt is pointed out tot them for not offering up burnt sacrifices and many other of the 613 laws outlined in the Mosaic Law. Their thinking is that those things that cannot be lived out due to the lack of a temple and priesthood is ample reason for remaining free from the accusation of disobedience. What they miss is that, had it been the Lord's will for adherence to such things, the Lord would have already provided for a way to live that law in obedience.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Notice the wording that says a change "...OF the Law," not IN the Law. Christ, being our High Priest, was not of the tribe of Levi, so there obviously was indeed a change in the priesthood, which has led to a change in the Law.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Again, if the Gentiles were also bound to the Mosaic Law, then they too would have been of mention in this prophesy, but it is completely silent toward any inclusion of Gentile believers or otherwise.
Hebrews 8:8, 13
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: ...
13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
Any and all gyrations and wiggling to try and squirm out from under the enormous weight of what this is actually saying is a wasted effort. It is futile. It irritates legalists to no end having to admit the Mosaic Law is confined within the constraints of a covenant, which was violated almost from day one, given the stiff-necked disobedience that characterized the Israelites.
The Mosaic Law was a covenant established with the 'house of Jacob," not all the rest of the nations of the world. Exodus 19 verses quoted above bear that out in clear and unmistakable language.
Now, granted, there is a foundational, timeless and borderless Law of God upon which ALL the various covenants of Law have been built, which includes the laws, statutes and commands Abraham obeyed, as stated in Genesis 26, the Mosaic Law, and the New Covenant Laws and commands established by Christ. What Abraham was given to obey, they are gone. The Mosaic Law is gone, and we now have the New Covenant, all of which are derived from God's Law. The main difference is that the Mosaic Law had many things added to them by the Lord to govern culture, diet, sin COVERING, and observances, which are not timeless elements that carry with them any moral implications outside of the people at whom they were aimed, and that the people themselves agreed that they would obey, and didn't.
So, what are your thoughts?
MM
