From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:46 PM
To: Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup
Subject: BOOK: THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW - Lesson #3
From: "HaY'Did" <shalom@haydid.org>
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Lesson Three: THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW
Dr. Ron Moseley is head of Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies in
North Little Rock, Arkansas. This is a specialty college that teaches
the Jewish roots of our faith. They offer these courses through
correspondence classes and are made for the working person and their
busy schedules. Dr. Ron sponsors a conference the first week of August
where Eddie Chumney and others in association gather each year to share
and teach. Visit their website at http://www.haydid.org/ark.htm for more
information.
**********************************************************************
LESSON THREE
DID PAUL REMAIN A JEW?
Only in modern theology is it conceivable that Paul would leave
his Jewish faith and practice when he began to preach to the Gentiles.
Both the New Testament and ancient literature show that Jewish believers
continued to keep the Jewish Law, festivals, and many traditions. The
Jewish believers kept the Law ot for salvation, but in obedience to
identify as God's Chosen People. It was not until much later, during
Justin Martyr's day [150 A.D.] when the Gentile Church began to
flourish, that we begin to encounter Replacement Theology where the
church replaced the Jews as God's Chosen People. As Jews, Jesus, Paul,
James, and Peter are continually seen keeping the Law to the end of
their lives, and others like John, as late as 50-60 years after
Pentecost. There is not one instance where Jesus or Paul attacked the
Law or any of its ordinances, but in every case supported them as the
Word of God. We as believers are commanded to walk by faith and to
fulfill the Law by applying its moral principles to our relationships
with fellow believers [Matthew 5:17-20].
It was Paul who told Timothy the Law was good if an individual
used it lawfully, and that no one would be crowned or rewarded except
when he lived lawfully [I Timothy 1:8; II Timothy 2:5].. Paul said he was
not living without the Law to God, but was under the Law to Christ
[I Corinthians 9:21]. Before the high priest and Felix, Paul boldly
proclaimed that those who accused him could not prove that he actually
broke the Law. Then Paul confessed that he worshiped God and believed
all things which were written in the Law and prophets. To make sure
there was no misunderstanding, Paul reminded his listeners that he
continually brought offerings and alms and went through the Temple
purification [Acts 24:13-20].. Dan Harrington, in his book, Paul on the
Mystery of Israel, affirms that "Paul never disavowed his Judaism. He
never said , ' I am no longer a Jew.' In fact, at several points, he
lists his credentials as a Jew [Philippians 3:5, 6; II Corinthians
11:22; Romans11:11]." Harrington further noted that one recent approach
by scholars to understand Paul's words involves viewing it in the
context of the situation in which he wrote. In his directives, Paul
necessarily used the language and slogans of his opponents, or at least
of the people whom he addressed. One major component that modern
believers seem to miss is that according to Paul's writings, the Law was
intended to bring about the right relationship with our fellow
believers, while Christ, the redemptive factor of God, brings about the
right relationship with God.
PAUL'S CONVERSATION WITH JAMES
It is particularly interesting to note the four points of
conversation when Paul returned to the Jerusalem Church and was
confronted by James and the elders concerning several issues of the
Law [Acts 21:17-25].
1. The many thousands of Jews who believed were all zealous for
the Law.
2. A problem arose as the incorrect word got out that Paul was
teaching Jews to forsake the Law and not circumcise their
children.
The point was that Gentile converts were not required to keep the Jewish
ritual laws, and James was not critical of that, but he objected to
anyone teaching Jews not to keep their identification covenant and
traditions [Acts 21:21].
3. James declared to Paul that this misconception must be
cleared up immediately. It should be noted that Paul agreed
with James, and this was done to prove his loyalty as a Jew to
the Law. Unfortunately, today many theologians still believe
this misconception about Paul and the Law [Acts 21:24].
4. Notice "as touching the Gentiles which believe" there was a
different standard, and they did not need to identify with a
covenant as the Chosen People. They were believers in the
Jewish Messiah and had to respect the so called Noachide
precepts stressed at the Jerusalem Council by avoiding pagan
beliefs [Acts 21:25; Acts 15:28, 29].
THERE IS NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE IN CHRIST
Concerning the promises regarding individual salvation, Paul
pointed out that there was neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, man
nor woman, but all were one in Christ [Galatians 3:28]. Occasionally,
someone takes this to mean that the Jew no longer exists as God's
chosen people. But by the same thinking this verse proves there are no
more women, no more slaves, no more people in jails. It is clear that
Paul is speaking only concerning salvation as he indicated by the
words "in Christ." The same point was made to the Ephesians in
showing them that there was no distinction or dividing wall in
Christ [Ephesians 2:14-19].
On the other hand, we would have to disallow many
Scriptures concerning promises to the nation of Israel to believe that
there is no difference in the nation who embraced God when no others
would. Israel is mentioned in Scripture some 2,293 times with at
least 15 references to God's everlasting covenant with them. In
Ephesians 2:12 the commonwealth of Israel is used as an exalted
phrase, and in Acts 4:27 well after the beginning of the church Luke
differentiates between the Gentiles and the people of Israel.
Romans 3:1, 2 tells us there is much advantage in every way of being
Jewish, especially because the oracles of God were originally from
their culture. With these things understood, one can easily see what
Paul meant by his words, "If you are a Jew, do not seek to become
uncircumcised, if you are non-Jewish, do not seek to be circumcised,
but let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is
called" [I Corinthians 7:18-20].
THOSE UNDER THE LAW MUST KEEP ALL THE LAW
Today some understand the phrase of James "if you offend in one
point of the Law, you are guilty of all" to mean that one must keep all of the
Law or else the Law is of no use [James 2:10]. Actually James is saying,
if you break any part of the Law you have violated the Law as a whole,
but that is true of any law, including the speeding laws of our day.
What James is addressing in this chapter has to do with having faith in
Jesus Christ with sin in one's life [James 2:11]. The problem arises
when modern believers fail to realize the Law was not to achieve
salvation, but to expose and remove sin from the life of believers.
The popular idea that one can live by faith without any rules,
committing sin and calling it liberty or grace, while believing the
Jews are under Law, is the old heresy of Antinomianism, and is one of
the issues being addressed in this chapter. The truth is there can be
no grace without Law and all who are without the Law of God are under
death because they do not recognize their sin, therefore do not qualify
for the grace of God [Romans 5:13, 14]. This was not written to the
Jews only, but to the Gentile brethren who thought they were living by a
different Law Of Liberty [James 2:8-14]. James is saying even the
Gentile brethren have to fulfill the Royal Law of Scripture by loving
their neighbor as themselves. This is the spirit of the whole Law, that
each individual must honor lest they have respect of persons and are
judged for breaking the Law of God.
THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH
A DIFFERENT RELIGION
It is obvious that neither Jesus nor Paul ever renounced
Judaism, deviated from being Jewish, or attempted to start a new
religion. At this point a major question needs to be answered. If
Jesus and Paul did not form a new anti-Jewish religion, who did?
A quick look at church history shows that as the church moved west
away from its Jewish roots, the Roman Church leaders of the fourth
century continued to develop theology to do away with all that was
Jewish. The most fundamental change was the teaching that the
Law was bad and opposed the grace of God.
By the fourth century the Roman Church had changed the church's
fundamental teaching of keeping the Law to a religion whose message
avoided anything to do with the term Law. By this time Christian
writers had begun to teach that the Law had been fulfilled by the coming
of Christ. By misusing the word fulfilled they defined this to mean it
was abolished, or cancelled which was exactly opposite the teaching of
Jesus Christ [Matthew 5:18, 19]. To Jesus, as in rabbinic literature
of His day, the word fulfill meant to keep the Law and correctly
interpret its teachings. From Paul's writing to the Galatians, it is
evident that he also understood the phrase fulfill the Law to mean one
should fulfill the Law through love and doing for others [Galatians
6:2; Romans 13:10].
From the mid-second century through the seventh century, Roman
theologians continued to develop new doctrines that opposed original
biblical concepts. One such doctrine was the idea that believers had
God's unconditional and unrestrained grace no matter what the
circumstances. They claimed this was a part of God's new covenant of
grace. Origen, a pastor in the third century, took Paul's phrase the
letter of the Law and developed a new teaching on legalism by suggesting
a dichotomy between the letter and the spirit. This set the stage
throughout history for the term legalism becoming synonymous with
Judaism and both being condemned. Remember, Paul's use of the term
letter of the Law was solely against Judaizers who misused the Law as a
means of salvation. Paul never criticized the Law of God as being
legalistic. In fact, it was Paul who reminded us that before the Law,
death reigned, and as believers the Law has dominion over us as long as
we live because the Law is holy, just, good, and spiritual [Romans 5:14;
Romans 7:1-25]. Paul further mentions that the Law of God is the will
of God and if we believe it, God will write it on our hearts and it
will be evidenced in our lives [Romans 2:17 2 18; 20- 29]. These new
ideas opposing Law in Christianity began to spring up as early as
160-220 A.D. in the Roman African communities represented by Tertullian
and was spearheaded by popular speakers such as Bishop John Chrysostom
in Antioch [349-400 A.D.].
TWO MAJOR CHANGES SINCE 70 A.D.
After the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., two new religious
organizations grew out of the pre-70 Judaism of Jesus and Paul's day.
The Pharisees fled Jerusalem to Yavneh and were spared while the Jewish
followers of Jesus fled to the mountains of Pella and survived [Matthew
24:16; Git. 56b; Tosef. Ber. 2:6]. From those two groups today we
have two separate religions known as Rabbinic Judaism and the Christian
Church. Today neither Rabbinic Judaism nor the church that formed much
of its theology from the fourth century Roman ideas, hold the same views
of the pre-70 Judaism of Jesus and Paul's day. Both Judaism and the
church have developed reactionary theologies aimed at keeping this
separation final. The church forbade believers from keeping the Jewish
feasts and began to meet on Sundays, while in reaction to the Christians
kneeling for prayer, the Jews adapted the position that they should
stand while praying the Amidah (only the Amidah is said standing).
Because of the various changes in both parties since the time of Christ,
it is advisable for the serious student to research every topic with the
culture of pre-70 Judaism in which most Scripture was written.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW COVENANT
The fact that the terms Old and New Covenant combined are only
found a total of four times in the biblical text reflects the reality that they
have the same basics and we are to fulfill the Old by obeying the New
Covenant. In the New Covenant nothing has been replaced. The
difference, as well as the advantage, is seen in that the manifestation
is far better in Christ in that He opened the flood gates of the kingdom
for all mankind.
When Hebrews 8:13 speaks of a new covenant that made the first
covenant old and ready to vanish, we must remember the subject of this letter was
the old priesthood and sacrificial system, which was about to change for
two reasons. First, because the Temple and this present sacrificial
system, was about to be destroyed, or already was destroyed acccording
to when this letter was actually written. Second, because Christ had
become a different manifestation of the sacrifice and high
priesthood. But under no circumstances did Paul or any Jewish Christian
writer suppose that God's unchanging nature, which stands behind the
Old Covenant, was about to vanish. Even Christians whose theology
opposes the Mosaic Law have to admit that God's moral and spiritual
principles of the Law are still active. Obviously, the writer of
Hebrews referred to the old system of sacrifices and priesthood that
were about to vanish, and not the spiritual principles of the Old
Covenant. Paul Ellingworth in his commentary on Hebrews says, "This
refers to the replacement of the old cult by the new, not to a change in
the ethical or civil requirements of the Torah."
END OF LESSON THREE
*************************************************************************
For a printed copy of this book you may contact either AIHLS or HaY'Did
Learning Center. Dr. Ron Moseley is available to speak by calling
1-800-617-6205. He will be speaking in London, Kentucky at Faith
Assembly of God Dec. 14-17, 1997 for an indepth time of teaching.
************************************************************************