Law of Moses, Binding on Christians: Do you believe that the Torah or Law of Moses is binding on Christians?

Any Messianic ministry is likely to have a more positive view of the Torah or Law of Moses, than is commonly witnessed in today’s contemporary Christianity. Like much of the Messianic community, Outreach Israel and TNN Online fully believe that Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) did not come to abolish the Torah, and that He directed His followers to treat it as valid instruction (Matthew 5:17-19).[a] While one will encounter language within various parts of the Messianic movement of Believers being “bound to keep Torah,” we find this to often be laced with a tenor of legalism—as though the Messiah has ordered His followers to keep some kind of dictates.

We do not prefer to say that the Torah is “binding” on any Believers—non-Jewish or even Jewish—for the simple fact that our Messiah says, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:30). Obeying the Father’s Instruction is to bring freedom and liberation to one’s life, as one can experience His blessings, and stay away from harmful influences. The Torah is not to be kept rigidly as some form of rules and regulations, designed to bring God’s people into bondage.

Within evangelical Christianity, there is the notion that in order to live a proper life in accordance with the Bible, faithful Believers need to do what Jesus did. This is perhaps best represented today with the popular slogan: “What Would Jesus Do?” We could not agree more. But, if we are to follow the example of our Messiah, we should live as He did. Today’s Church has lost much of its moral and ethical direction because of downplaying the role of the Torah or Law of Moses, at least in one’s Bible reading and understanding of the Scriptural message. Today’s emerging Messianic movement has a great job to do, in redirecting the attention of concerned Believers back to the faith of Yeshua and His Apostles, in a way that brings greater richness, spirituality, and holiness in appreciation toward God’s commandments.

Yeshua lived as a Jewish Rabbi in First Century Israel, and obeyed the Torah. While this surely includes much of the moral and ethical instruction of the Law, that godly Christians throughout the centuries have always followed and appreciated—Yeshua also followed things that much of Christianity has deemed “unnecessary” for the post-resurrection era. These include things such as the seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, and the kosher dietary laws—which Messianics do not believe have been “done away.” We affirm that by remembering these things in one’s daily walk, that Messiah followers can better appreciate the Father’s redemptive plan for the ages, and have a greater degree of holiness present in their lives (i.e., 1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 11:44ff).

If you were to pinpoint a Messianic ministry like Outreach Israel and TNN Online and say, “Do you believe that the Law of Moses is applicable today?”, we would say yes. But asking if the Law is “binding upon Christians,” may imply that obeying our Heavenly Father is a “burden,” and is intended to be legalistic bondage and a life of little joy. This is not what the Lord wants. Obedience to God must come from the heart, and our motivation must come forth via the work of the Holy Spirit inside of us, rather than a work of the flesh or some kind of Law-keeping for salvation. The Holy Spirit, poured out upon every human being who has sought the Creator God via His Son (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17), is to supernaturally compel the redeemed to walk in obedience to His Instruction (Romans 8:4).

Obedience to God’s Torah should never come because one is trying to earn his or her salvation out of works (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather be manifested by saved people as they walk in good works (Ephesians 2:10). We should all want to live as our Messiah Yeshua lived, demonstrating obedience as a result of an inward transformation that has taken place. Do note that the greatest commands in the Torah are to love God and love others (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.), and the essence of the New Covenant includes not only a permanent forgiveness available for the redeemed but also the supernatural transcription of the Law onto the hearts and minds of God’s people (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; cf. Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17).[b]

Our ministry has a wide number of publications and articles available on the Messianic lifestyle, which should aid you if the concept of “Torah observance” is rather new. Of particular interest should be the books Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study, Introduction to Things Messianic, The New Testament Validates Torah, and Torah In the Balance, Volume I. The Messianic Helper series by TNN Press is also extremely useful.

NOTES

updated 07 July, 2011

Least in the Kingdom: What does it mean to be “least in the Kingdom”?

There is a variance of interpretations in the Messianic movement regarding what being “least of the Kingdom” means. In Matthew 5:19, Yeshua the Messiah says, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” What we may assume from these words is that one’s status in the Kingdom of God can be determined by how one handles or approaches the Torah or Law of Moses. If one teaches the Torah, and encourages others to keep its commandments, that person will be considered great in the Kingdom. If one teaches against the Torah and its commandments, that person will be considered the least.

One of the most sobering words from our Lord comes in Matthew 13:41-42, speaking of His return. Yeshua says that when He returns, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He also says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS’” (Matthew 7:21-23; cf. Psalm 6:8).

These references to lawlessness, or anomia (anomia), are references to those who deny the place of the Torah in their lives. Some have interpreted being “least” in the Kingdom as not being in the Kingdom at all. Unfortunately, there are some in the Messianic community who make it their job to judge the salvation of many who are not pursuing a Torah observant lifestyle as they are. It is not our job as limited human beings to judge the eternal salvation of anyone. But, it is our job to take the words of the Messiah very seriously. If we are not pursuing compliance with what He has told us concerning the Torah, then what is going to happen? The Torah is God’s standard of what He considers acceptable and unacceptable. If we are not pursuing an acceptable lifestyle, then are we in rebellion to God? Are we making ourselves out to be God?

The Messiah attaches rewards to those who keep the commandments of the Torah and teach them to others, and penalties to those who do not keep the commandments and teach others to break them. The word “least” or elachistos (elacistoß) is of importance here, as it “pert. to being considered of very little importance, insignificant, trivial” (BDAG).[a] What does this mean? Does it mean that many who have taught that the Torah is no longer to be followed are going to be given few rewards in the Kingdom? Again, it is not our place to judge the status of anyone, but we must heed the Lord’s words and endeavor to follow His admonitions.

Being “least in the Kingdom” can definitely be taken as a word concerning one’s status in the Kingdom, in terms of being given few rewards and accolades. We need to all remember, though, how one’s status in the Kingdom of God is ultimately determined by only God Himself. He is the final Judge of all human beings.

NOTES

updated 08 November, 2006

Leavening Agents: How can I determine what is, and what is not, kosher for the Passover season?

One of the major Biblical injunctions concerning Passover is to eat unleavened bread for seven days, remembering the bread of haste that the Ancient Israelites had to eat as they left Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:3). By extension, not only does the command pertain to eating unleavened bread, but it is a week-long prohibition against eating anything with leavening agents. This has been interpreted and applied in different ways, with some divergent halachah, in the Jewish community over the centuries.

The Talmud, for example, specifically rules that there are five types of grain that can be used for the production of matzah or unleavened bread: wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt (b.Pesachim 35a), and notably the list does not include rice and millet. Ashkenazic authorities would later extend the list of forbidden grains to include “legumes” such as beans, peas, corn, lentils, buckwheat, and sometimes peanuts. The prohibition exists because of the belief that flour made from these substances could be easily confused with leavened flour. It is notable that the addition of legumes comes largely from Medieval European Jewry, having made contact with the New World, and debates over what grains are “kosher for Passover” do not come from the First Century. In more modern times, various segments of Orthodox Ashkenazic Jewry have liberalized their stance on whether or not rice, beans, or corn can be eaten at Passover, as prohibitions against eating these things were largely given for a different time. Of course, this has not stopped many Ashkenazics from other branches of Judaism from eating “legumes” during the season of Passover.

Generally, Jewish halachah in both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities permits matzah to be mixed with grape juice, oil, or egg for the young and infirm. Egg matzos for Passover are not intended to be eaten by everyone during this time, although if one is confused, consulting one’s rabbi is recommended.

Much of the confusion surrounding what is “kosher for Passover” in the Messianic community comes from Jewish Believers who were raised in nominally observant or relatively liberal homes. It also comes from non-Jewish Believers who were not raised in the Synagogue (or possibly even adjacent to any sizeable Jewish community), and hence are not familiar with many of the customs and traditions surrounding this holiday. In significant parts of the Jewish community, it is not uncommon for most homes to have a special set of dishes just to be used for Passover and Unleavened Bread. In some sects, kosher for Passover toothpaste, bottled drinking water, Coca-Cola, and even toilet paper are available. When some people see all of the Rabbinical injunctions, they easily get confused, even though they do not need to be.

The commandment regarding unleavened bread in the Scriptures pertains to eating and one’s daily consumption. Obviously, any kind of bread or cereal that has yeast cannot be eaten. Various kinds of alcohol that have been produced with yeast (i.e., beer) cannot be consumed. This does not necessarily mean that one has to buy “kosher for Passover” cheese, because the cows who provided milk for the cheese ate corn for their diet. Most of the questionable items pertain to things that one would normally eat with bread, and you should check to see if there is a kosher for Passover section at your supermarket.

This should give you a good idea about what you can eat. You may also want to consult a Jewish cookbook that will have many kosher for Passover recipes. More than anything else, we would urge you not to feel condemned if you make a few mistakes in an effort to be kosher during Passover. God’s grace covers our sins, our “leaven,” and when we find that we do make mistakes, we try to quickly rectify them.

posted 14 April, 2006
Virtual Passover

Left Behind Books: What is your opinion of the Left Behind books?

We do not believe that the Left Behind books should be taken very seriously, per se, because they are a fictional extrapolation of how co-authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins believe the Tribulation period will occur.

Although we can agree with the possibilities of much of LaHaye’s Tribulation scenario, we do not agree with his pre-tribulation rapture position. Thus, we would urge some caution in reading his books, which have become quite popular in the secular arena as pure fiction. However, at the very least, these books have stimulated a new interest in Bible prophecy among many Believers, and hopefully God can use this to get people to begin examining prophetic Scriptures for themselves.

updated 27 April, 2006

Levirate Marriage: Can you explain to me what levirate marriage is?

The term “levirate” is derived from the Latin levir, meaning “brother-in-law,” a translation for the Hebrew yavam (~by) reflected in the Vulgate. The instructions regarding levirate marriage appear in Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

“When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.’ In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’”

The ordinance of levirate marriage is given so that if a husband dies without producing an heir, his brother can take the widow as his own wife, producing an heir for his brother. “This form of marriage…allowed a man to receive his deceased brother’s property and manage it for the widow, thereby keeping the family property and possessions intact. If the deceased brother left no male children then the surviving brother was expected to take the deceased’s wife. Any son born of this relationship to the widow would be counted as the dead brother’s heir, who would then be expected to continue the family line” (ISBE).[a] Even though the Torah explicitly forbids sexual unions between close relatives (Leviticus 18:16), theologians and commentators have had to note “that the legislation of Deut 25:5-10 is an exception to the legislation regarding marriage and/or sexual intercourse with one’s sister-in-law” (ABD).[b]

With the unfortunate rise of a sector of Messianic polygamists in recent days, or men believing that husbands can take more than one wife (this belief is thoroughly refuted in the editor’s article “Is Polygamy for Today?”), such advocates have claimed that the instructions regarding levirate marriage are a kind of Biblically-commanded polygamy. The problem with this is that it is not sustainable in the only two examples we see of levirate marriage in the Tanach.

The first we see is that of the widow Tamar in Genesis 38, whose husband Er died without giving her any offspring (Genesis 38:7). His brother, Onan, was asked by his father Judah to perform the ritual of the levirate, being told “Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8). During the sexual act with Tamar, it is recorded that Onan withdrew at the moment of climax: “Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother” (Genesis 38:9). Onan’s life was taken by the Lord (Genesis 38:10) because “he spilled the semen on the ground” (RSV). This occurred not because withdrawal is a form of contraception, but because having committed to the rite of the levirate he did not follow through during relations with Tamar. There is no statement in the text that Onan was already married, so even though a child conceived would be considered Er’s, Tamar would be his first wife.

The second example we encounter in the Tanach are various references to levirate marriage in the Book of Ruth. Boaz is one of the closest of Naomi’s relatives (Ruth 2:20), a man who has the right to redeem the family property by taking Ruth as his wife (Ruth 3:13). After encountering the widow Ruth, this is something that Boaz is actually very interested in doing. A closer relative has the right to the first choice of the family property and Ruth, but as Boaz tells him, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5), and the relative promptly declines (Ruth 4:6). Boaz is able to take Ruth as his own wife, raising up an heir for the deceased family of Elimelech (Ruth 4:10, 17). Here, we see that perhaps the closer relative could have taken on Ruth as another wife, but clearly chose not to do so as he saw a conflict of interest regarding inheritance.

The instructions regarding levirate marriage concerns a situation ki-yesh’bu achim yach’dav (wDxy ~yxa Wbvy-yK), or “When brothers dwell together” (Deuteronomy 25:5a, NJPS). Various interpretations that have been offered of this include: (1) brothers alive together at the same time, (2) those living in the same town, (3) those who live together in a consortium or family estate. The first interpretation is the most likely,[c] even though “brothers” can probably be extended out to also mean close relatives in some cases.

How often the ritual of the levirate was actually practiced does shed some significant light on the fact that a so-called Biblically-commanded polygamy is not the issue. Onan pulled out at the last moment, and the man who had the first choice of Ruth rejects her. Likewise, built into the instructions of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 is the option for the brother-in-law to decline his brother’s widow with a special procedure of her removing his shoe or sandal. The widow was to go before the elders of her town (Deuteronomy 25:7-8), pull off the sandal of her brother-in-law, and spit in his face saying, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line” (Deuteronomy 25:9, NIV). The brother-in-law who does not follow the rite of the levirate will have a stigma attached to him (Deuteronomy 25:10). And concurrent with this, “in removing the brother-in-law’s shoe, with the town’s elders as witnesses, the woman assumes the right to her freedom and full control of her destiny” (ABD),[d] as shoes were often viewed as being a sign of property ownership.[e]

Because there are opt-out instructions given for the rite of levirate marriage, there is good cause for us to believe that this was observed few and far between in the period of the Tanach (i.e., Ruth 4:7). Indeed, the history of the Jewish Synagogue attests that it eventually died out, as the maintenance of property within a family was less and less needed as economies changed, and along with it the need to keep property or land within a specific family group. At the very most, we see “levirate marriage” observed today in Judaism when a new child is named after a deceased relative. Jeffrey H. Tigay observes, “We find echoes of this sentiment today in the emotionally powerful custom of naming a child after a deceased relative…whose name thus lives on. It may also be a way of ensuring that the widow is left with a tangible reminder of her first marriage…”[f] This would certainly be a suitable way for Messianics today to likewise honor the instructions of Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

NOTES

posted 10 November, 2008

Leviticus 18:5 (Luke 10:28; Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5): Does the Torah actually teach that by keeping its commandments, a person can earn eternal life?

Is it possible for a person to keep the commandments of the Torah, and as a result incur eternal life and everlasting communion with the Father? There are those throughout Jewish and Christian religious history, and even to our present time, who have thought that Leviticus 18:5—“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them”—implies precisely this. There are certainly Christian interpreters, who would dispute this conclusion based on a variety of contextual factors, and would consider it in stark contradiction with Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Only by carefully evaluating the original setting of Leviticus 18:5, and then some key places in the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, where it is quoted or alluded to (Luke 10:28; Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5), can a Bible reader have a good idea about what is being communicated.

Leviticus 18:5

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.”

On its own, Leviticus 18:5 says, “You shall observe My decrees and My laws, which man shall carry out and by which he shall live—I am HASHEM” (ATS). The two verbs of interest first include shamar (rmv), generally meaning to “keep, watch, preserve” (BDB),[a] “The basic idea of the root is ‘to exercise great care over’” (TWOT).[b] The second is chayah (hyx), seen in the clause ha’adam v’chai b’hem (~hB yxw ~dah), a very wooden translation of it being: “a person/mortal and will live in/by them.” The verb v’chai (yxw) is a third person, Qal vav consecutive perfect, here in Leviticus 18:5 likely having a “Consequential” usage, meaning that it “expresses logical result, describing an action or situation resulting from a previous action or situation” (A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax).[c] If people keep God’s statutes and judgments, then they will live. The theological challenge, with approaching the verb chayah, is how it can range from meanings relating to physical life, a prosperous life, to eternal life.[d]

What is intended by, “if a person does them, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5, ESV)? This is where we need to be sure to read Leviticus 18:5 in view of its wider cotext, in which some important contextual and historical indicators are mentioned. This should give readers an appropriate perspective of what is being asserted by the Lord:

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD”’” (Leviticus 18:1-5).

Following this preface in Leviticus ch. 18 is largely a series of sexual instructions, prohibiting various incestuous relationships (Leviticus 18:6-18), sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstruation cycle (Leviticus 18:19), sexual relationships between a man and another woman (Leviticus 18:20), male homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). Also seen are a prohibition on presenting one’s offspring to Molech (Leviticus 18:21), and how Israel will be cast out of the Promised Land if they perform any of these sins (Leviticus 18:24-30). The universal nature for all of those within the community to keep these instructions is emphasized (Leviticus 18:26). The essential summary is that the sexual practices observed in Egypt, and also observed in Canaan, are strictly off limits for the Ancient Israelites. Readers should notice that,

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD…For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 18:5, 29-30).

With this all in view, the wider context and issues present in Leviticus ch. 18 should not guide readers in the direction of thinking that eternal life, or everlasting communion with God, is something that can be earned by keeping the Torah’s commandments. Such a conclusion is something plainly absent from the text reviewed. It would, however, be most proper to conclude that Leviticus 18:5 says that a proper mode and quality of life, b’hem (~hB)—“in them” (KJV), “by them” (NIV/ESV), or “through them” (CJB)—can be present by those who keep the Torah’s commandments. The Torah’s high sexual instructions, for example, are surely intended to generate respect for other people in the community. For the Ancient Israelites who would be faithful to observe God’s Torah, especially in regard to the immediate instructions seen in Leviticus ch. 18, they would not have been cut off or have faced capital punishment for their offenses. On the contrary, in guarding their sexual conduct, they would be contributing to a society where the value of all people was honored.

The tenor we see, from how Leviticus 18:5 is referenced elsewhere in the Tanach, would confirm that a high quality of Earthly life and conduct is in view:

“I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live…But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness. They did not walk in My statutes and they rejected My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; and My sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I resolved to pour out My wrath on them in the wilderness, to annihilate them…But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness” (Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21).

“And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, by which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen” (Nehemiah 9:29).

At the very most, what could be implied from Leviticus 18:5 is that the person, who keeps God’s commandments, would remain on a straight and narrow path (cf. Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:24), that will consummate in entering into God’s Kingdom—not that keeping commandments themselves will earn or merit one eternal life. Those who live within the right sphere of conduct on Planet Earth, by their behavior, should demonstrate themselves as those who are members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In theological studies, both Jewish and Christian, one will certainly find a divergence of views on the meaning of Leviticus 18:5. The debate on how Leviticus 18:5 is to be approached, generally falls into two categories: those who see this as a quality of daily life in holiness on the path of faith that God has established for His people, and those who see this verse as implying that eternal life can possibly be earned through human Torah observance.[e] The following chart is a summary of relatively current Jewish and Christian approaches:

Gordon J. Wenham is one whose observations on Leviticus 18:5 seem to move between Earthly and eternal views of life. He first states, “For the OT writers life means primarily physical life. But it is clear that in this and similar passages more than mere existence is being promised. What is envisaged is a happy life in which a man enjoys God’s bounty of health, children, friends, and prosperity. Keeping the law is the path to divine blessing, to a happy and fulfilled life in the present (Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 28:1-14).”[n] He goes on and adds, however, “it is Jesus and Paul who insist that the full meaning of life is eternal life. If anyone can keep the law, he will enjoy eternal life (Matt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12).”[o] Wenham further takes this to the point of saying, “In John’s Gospel man must keep the new law—the word of Christ.”[p]

There are those Christian examiners who lean toward, “So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them” (Leviticus 18:5), as relating to the obedience of Yeshua the Messiah to the Torah—and how born again Believers are to be associated with such obedience, as they are to be found in Him. A similar view would be how people keep a Torah that is intended to naturally point to the salvation of the Messiah (cf. Romans 10:4, Grk.).[q] While we do surely all benefit as redeemed souls from the perfect obedience of Yeshua to the Torah, and a Believer’s keeping of God’s commandments is to always point to the salvation of Yeshua—this is probably a bit of a stretch for interpreting Leviticus 18:5.

For today’s Messianics, who can be certainly said to have a faith practice significantly informed by Judaism, it is true that there are views expressed in ancient Jewish literature, such as the Targums, which would conclude that Leviticus 18:5 teaches that eternal life is attainable via keeping the Torah’s commandments:

“And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man do he shall live by them an everlasting life. I am the Lord” (Targum Onkelos on Leviticus 18:5).[r]

“And you shall keep My statutes, and the order of My judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them, in the life of eternity, and his portion shall be with the just: I am the Lord” (Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 18:5).[s]

A lesser, although notable view, is seen in the Talmud, where a Rabbi Meir is said that a non-Jew who keeps the Torah may be regarded as though he were a high priest:

“R. Meir says, ‘Whence do we know that even an idolator, should he take up study of the Torah, is equivalent to a high priest? For it is said, “[You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments,] which, if a man do them, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5); priests, Levites, and Israelites are not specified, but only a man. From that formulation you learn that even an idolator, should he engage in study of the Torah, is equivalent to a high priest’” (b.Sanhedrin 59a).[t]

There are ancient Jewish opinions that regarded Leviticus 18:5 as teaching that eternal life could be attained via keeping God’s commandments. This was an opinion surely present within the First Century Jewish world of Yeshua and the Apostles, but whether they actually agreed with it or endorsed it can probably be disputed (discussed further).

A more modern Jewish approach to Leviticus 18:5, which can be appreciable, is how Richard Elliot Friedman renders the clause ha’adam v’chai b’hem as, “he’ll live through them.”[u] In his estimation, “This way of picturing the laws, as a path to life, begins here. It returns as the climax of the Torah in Deuteronomy. The path to the Tree of Life is blocked at the Torah’s beginning, and the way to recover it is emphasized at the Torah’s end. The laws are not presented as a burden but as a blessing.”[v] He goes on to chastise those “who have characterized the law as a weight that no human can possibly bear, as a curse from which one needs to be saved.”[w] Yet, Friedman’s view is probably a bit too conditioned by a Jewish theology which sees the Torah as the means of obtaining what was lost in Eden, rather than a coming Messiah who is to save God’s people (cf. Genesis 3:15).

From the actual text of Leviticus 18:5, we see that “life” is promised to those who keep God’s commandments. Readers are definitely on good footing to conclude that Leviticus 18:5 regards a high quality of life lived on Earth, one that is intended to be blessed and prosperous from the Lord. To conclude that eternal life can somehow be merited from keeping commandments, though, has to be eisegeted into the text, even though there are interpreters in history who have incorrectly held to it.

However, for those who have acknowledged Yeshua (Jesus) as Savior—to act as though daily life has no connection to future Heavenly life—would be most inappropriate. For those who obey God’s commandments in Messiah are surely to be regarded as men and women of the age to come living in the present evil age. They are to bear in their activities of daily life, the blessings to be fully consummated in future Heavenly life. Leviticus 18:5 does not promise eternal life via someone keeping God’s commandments, but Leviticus 18:5 can provide assurance that those who keep God’s commandments will be firmly planted within the sphere of His Kingdom. God’s commandments do not provide the way of salvation from sins and eternal punishment, but they do provide the way of sanctification and holiness. As Tidball properly describes,

“Some might wish to object to God’s right to say how his people should live, but it should really come as no surprise that the God who made us knows better than we ourselves know how we should function in his world. It should not surprise us that obeying the maker’s instructions is likely to bring the best out of us and lead us to live life to the full.”[x]

Luke 10:28

“And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.’”

Luke 10:28 is a verse that all Bible readers have probably struggled with, as on the surface Yeshua seemingly endorses a concept of salvation by Torah-keeping. The cotext of Luke 10:25-29 might point readers in the direction of eternal life being inheritable via keeping the Torah. But, can salvation really come by works? In the dialogue between a certain lawyer or Torah teacher, and the Lord, Yeshua is questioned about how he can obtain eternal life:

“And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?’ And he answered, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF’ [Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18]. And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE’ [Leviticus 18:5]” (Luke 10:15-28).[y]

Appearing in Luke 10:25, the verb klēronomeō (klhronomew) in a broad sense means “to receive a share of an inheritance, to inherit a portion of property” (LS).[z] I. Howard Marshall is correct to indicate how the verb “here has the idea of being qualified now to receive a future blessing from God.”[aa] In some other versions klēronomeō is rendered as “gain” (Common English Bible, TLV), and the Phillips New Testament offers the useful paraphrase, “Master, what must I do to be sure of eternal life?”

One of the immediate features that must be noted in Luke 10:25-28, is how the two principal commandments of loving God and loving neighbor are referenced by the lawyer, as needing to be kept. The lawyer’s intention, though, was to “trap him” (Luke 10:25, CJB) or “entrap Yeshua” (TLV). Marshall observes how “Jesus improves the occasion by calling the lawyer to be sure to practise the commandments,”[bb] as the Messiah is surely no antinomian. Anyone reading Luke 10:25-28, whether they think that the Torah has relevance and validity in the post-resurrection era or not, still thinks that those who truly believe in God are to love Him and neighbor—especially given the placement of Yeshua’s teaching of the Good Samaritan following (Luke 10:30-37). In Luke 10:26, Yeshua asks the lawyer the pertinent question, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” He puts the Torah teacher on the spot, asking him what he thinks is necessary to be followed in order for him to receive eternal life. After quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18, Yeshua confirms the lawyer’s conclusion (Luke 10:27-28a).

There are examiners of Luke 10:28b, seeing the quotation of Leviticus 18:5, who think that Yeshua is focusing the attention of the Torah teacher on his heart attitude, and the impossibility of keeping the Torah’s commandments in order to inherit eternal life. In the view of Leon Morris,

“Some see in this a formal commendation of the way of works. If you want a way of salvation by doing, this is it (with the implication that you won’t be able to do it.) It is perhaps more likely that it is a repudiation of works. It is not what we do, considered as a meritorious work, that matters, but our attitude…Jesus is not commending a new system of legalism somewhat different from the old one, but pointing to the end of all legalism. The lawyer wanted a rule or a set of rules that he could keep and so merit eternal life. Jesus is telling him that eternal life is not a matter of keeping rules at all. To live in love is to live the life of the kingdom of God.”[cc]

No one will argue against the fact that love for God and neighbor are required in order to have eternal life, because even though salvation is freely given, it is first manifested by a changed heart that loves God and others without prejudice, bigotry, pride, or pre-conditions.

How Luke 10:28 with its quotation of Leviticus 18:5 is approached—with some concluding that, at least hypothetically, observance of Torah commandments can merit eternal life—relates to how Luke 10:28 immediately leads Yeshua to teach on the Good Samaritan. Does the lawyer, who has just correctly answered by saying how eternal life involves loving God and neighbor, truly understand all of the ramifications of this? Luke 10:29 indicates, “But wishing to justify himself, he said to Yeshua, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” The Moffat New Testament is probably right to paraphrase this with, “Anxious to make an excuse for himself.” While theologically the Torah teacher’s answer was correct, there was still some significant maturation to take place within him—and this teacher, who had wanted to test Yeshua (Luke 10:25), was being convicted of his limitations right in the sight of Him!

One’s neighbor includes all members of the human race, not just those within one’s immediate sphere of comfort. As Craig A. Evans observes,

“It is…easier to profess love for God and to observe religious rituals as proof of this love than it is to show love for one’s neighbor. The legal expert must have sensed this and so, wishing to justify himself, asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ Implicit in his question is an excuse for failing to keep the second commandment…The commandment to love one’s neighbor is to be applied universally, not selectively. As the Parable of the Good Samaritan will illustrate, it is the man who treats a stranger as a neighbor that really keeps the commandments of the law.”[dd]

One perspective of inheriting eternal life (Luke 10:25) via God’s commandments is offered by R. Alan Culpepper, “Eternal life is found not just in knowing the commandments but in doing them. The answer to the lawyer’s question is implicit in the question itself: ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Those who live rightly ordered lives now—living out of their love for God, others, and self—show that they have been touched by the kingdom of God. They will have the capacity to receive the promised inheritance: life in fellowship with God and others in the age to come.”[ee] Culpepper’s viewpoint, though, is more representative of an intended life to be experienced by those who keep God’s commandments resulting from a supernatural experience with Him, not by those who can somehow earn eternal life by their human works.

The presence of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) should make us think that keeping Torah commandments themselves cannot earn a person eternal life. Yeshua’s teaching is concerned with how those who have been oriented toward loving God and loving neighbor, will bear no malice, disdain, or negativity toward all other people. The lawyer/Torah teacher had a correct theology in recognizing that love for God and neighbor was required to inherit eternal life. Correct theology, however, must be joined with a correct orthopraxy or the right actions. Living properly in honoring one’s neighbor is to be a reflection of future eternal life and communion with God, as manifested in day-to-day activities. When Yeshua quoted Leviticus 18:5, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE” (Luke 10:28), it should point readers forward in the direction of the lifestyle and attitudes required of His followers, best seen by what is delivered in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This would also concur with how Leviticus 18:5 was originally given in the Torah to provide proper guidelines for life for those within the community of Israel:

“Yeshua replied and said, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, “Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.” Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?’ And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’ Then Yeshua said to him, ‘Go and do the same’” (Luke 10:30-37).

The Samaritans were greatly despised and rejected by most of the First Century Jewish community. In Yeshua’s view, though, in order to demonstrate oneself worthy of eternal life, a Torah obedience that frequently conflicts with the established norms of one’s religious leaders and prevailing culture must be practiced. The lawyer, being told by Yeshua that his neighbors included Samaritans, could have been shown to not only be unworthy of eternal life—but concurrent with the original context of Leviticus 18:5, be unworthy of even the material blessings and prosperity offered by Moses.

When Yeshua says in Luke 10:28, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE,” it is then substantiated in the example that follows via how the Samaritan showed mercy. Many have taken “Do this…” as looking backward to the answer the lawyer gives (Luke 10:25-27). This would then imply that keeping the Torah’s commandments will result in one inheriting eternal life—as impossible as it may be—requiring all to look to Yeshua. It is better for us to conclude that Luke 10:28, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE,” touto poiei kai zēsē (touto poiei kai zhsh), looks forward to the message of the parable Yeshua delivers to the rather nervous Torah teacher. What Luke 10:36-37 says is what Yeshua really expects in terms of how His followers are to live:

“‘Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?’ And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’ Then Yeshua said to him, ‘Go and do the same [poreuou kais su poiei homoiōs, poreuou kai su poiei omoiwß].’”

Grammatically speaking, the source text of both Luke 10:28 and 37 uses the same word, the present active imperative poiei. The verb poieō (poiew) here would mean something along the lines of, “to carry out an obligation of a moral or social nature, do, keep, carry out, practice, commit” (BDAG).[ff] Seeing the imperative mood poiei is important, as “The imperative mood is the mood of intention” and “The imperative is most commonly used for commands” of some kind (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).[gg] As such, Yeshua’s statement about “Do this…,” regards loving neighbor as oneself—whoever that neighbor may be—as Earthly life is regulated by God’s commandments. Luke 10:28, 37 instruct readers, “DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE…Go and do [poiei] the same {in showing mercy}.”

God’s commandments on their own cannot provide a person with eternal life, but keeping God’s commandments do surely keep people within the sphere of God’s Kingdom. God’s commandments represent behavior appropriate to those who have eternal life, in their activities on Planet Earth.

Galatians 3:12

“However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.’”

All readers of Paul’s letter to the Galatians can discern how Galatians ch. 3 is absolutely “loaded,” as it were, as the Apostle wants his Galatian audience to be brought into a proper understanding regarding the place of the Torah. There is a probable contrast between what the Judaizers/Influencers have reported to the Galatians, and what Paul informs them here. The main point in the cotext of Galatians 3:11-13 is that the Torah has not been given to justify people, as faith in God is what has always justified people, now involving belief in His Messiah. Yeshua the Messiah has come to redeem all people from the curse and condemnation of the Torah pronounced upon all Law-breakers:

“Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH’ [Habakkuk 2:4]. However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM’ [Leviticus 18:5]. Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE’ [Deuteronomy 21:23]” (Galatians 3:11-13).

All readers of Galatians 3:12 can acknowledge how Paul says that the Torah is not of faith, and how he then quotes Leviticus 18:5 to state some kind of purpose that the Torah serves. Various commentators on the Epistle to the Galatians have taken this as a statement that eternal life can be gained by Torah observance—and that since this is a human impossibility—faith in the perfect Messiah, who was sacrificed for human sins, is required instead.[hh]

Many readers of Galatians 3:12a take Paul’s remark, “the Law is not of faith,” and use it as an excuse to avoid having to heed Moses’ Teaching—even sometimes to just read and study the Pentateuch as a matter of Biblical history. Does this statement actually mean that the Torah is of no relevance for Believers today who have faith in Messiah Yeshua? This statement must be counterbalanced with what the author of Hebrews communicates, as he says “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Likewise, it must also be counterbalanced with the fact that Paul himself further asserts, “we know that the Law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14).

The Torah is not something that is inspired by mere mortals; its Author is God Himself. It is not to be dispensed with on a whim. We are to listen to its instruction. The Torah as something to be followed cannot generate “faith” or “trust,”[ii] as this must come from a steadfast internal confidence that a person places between himself or herself, and the Creator God. The Torah might not be “of faith” (ek pisteōs, ek pistewß), but it is surely an important part of “the faith” and the canon of authority that God’s people are to turn to.

The quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12b is intended to be a contrast between the Torah not being of faith, and its statutes to be followed. But, is this intended to be something that is adversative? The view of James Montgomery Boice is precisely this: “For faith excludes law, and law by its very nature excludes faith. [Paul] quotes the law itself (Lev. 18:5) to support this conclusion.”[jj] G. Walter Hansen is a bit more targeted in his commentary on Galatians 3:12, fairly noting how “The whole of the Pentateuch (law in the broad sense) is primarily concerned with faith in God,” but he then goes on to describe, “In Galatians 3:12 law must be taken in the narrow sense…In the Galatian dispute the law refers to a set of requirements…imposed on Gentile believers.”[kk]

Messianics have significantly struggled with Galatians 3:12, but not so much with the assertion that “the Law is not of faith” (Galatians 3:12a). It can be pretty easily deduced that the Torah’s instruction has been given not to provide faith, but rather provide a means of holiness and proper living. Messianics have specifically struggled over the quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12b, so much so that the Complete Jewish Bible rendering of Galatians 3:12 implies an errant view of Leviticus 18:5 being present in the Jewish world of the First Century: “Furthermore, legalism is not based on trusting and being faithful, but on [a misuse of] the text that says, ‘Anyone who does these things will attain life through them.’” While it should definitely be disputed why nomos (nomoß) is rendered in the CJB here as “legalism” and not “Torah” as it is elsewhere, it should even more be questioned why David H. Stern chose to add “a misuse of” in brackets []. He believes that the problem present in Galatians is legalism,[ll] which may be true to some extent—but does Stern stand on strong exegetical ground to paraphrase Galatians 3:12 the way that he has with “a misuse of”? Probably not.

Much of our perspective of Galatians 3:12 is going to come down to how we choose to view the clause, all’ ho poiēsas auta zēsetai en autois (all o poihsaß auta zhsetai en autoiß). The dative (case indicating indirect object) clause en autois (en autoiß) or “by/in them,” with the preposition en (en), is either locational: “marker of a position defined as being in a location, in, among” (BDAG).[mm] Or, en could be instrumental: “marker introducing means or instrument, with” (BDAG).[nn] Those who keep the Torah live within the sphere of, or by, its instruction.

Leviticus 18:5, as already noted, is a section of the Torah where appropriate sexual conduct is commanded of the Ancient Israelites as they prepare to enter into the Promised Land. These were surely things that the non-Jewish Believers in Galatia similarly had to follow, as would be confirmed in the later Apostolic decree (Acts 15:19-21), being non-negotiable for inclusion within the ekklēsia. It would seem best for us to view the clause all’ ho poiēsas auta zēsetai en autois, with the conjunctive all’ ho… as marking “a transition to someth. new…[or] other matter for additional consideration” (BDAG),[oo] being better translated with “yet, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE IN THEM.” So, while Paul may recognize that the Torah is incapable of generating faith, if the presence of Leviticus 18:5 is not viewed as adversative—he by all means upholds the relevance of the Torah as a means of proper human conduct, most especially its sexual code. No word in Galatians, or anywhere in the Pauline corpus, can be seen speaking against the sexual ethics of the Torah!

When the conjunction alla (alla) is taken not as adversative, but rather as “forming a transition to someth. new,” such as another “matter for additional consideration” (BDAG),[pp] then the rendering “And, the Torah is not of faith; yet, ‘HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE IN THEM (Galatians 3:12b, editor’s translation) can be better understood. God’s Torah not providing faith, and practicing the commandments of God’s Torah, are not at total odds with one another. The purpose of God’s Torah is not to provide faith, but its purpose is to provide a sanctified way of living on Planet Earth.

James D.G. Dunn fairly observes on Galatians 3:12, concurrent with this, how “The law…was the means of regulating life within the covenant, not the basis of the covenant itself….It needs to be stressed that this is essentially a positive view of the role of the law.” He further states, “the thought of the unfulfillability of the law [is not] anywhere in sight here…[I]it is highly pertinent to note that in context Lev. xviii.2-5 emphasizes the distinctiveness of Israel’s way of life from that of the surrounding nations.”[qq] Galatians 3:12 should be read as communicating that while the Torah is not of faith, it is yet intended to bring the right way of living to those who keep its commandments.

The proper role of the Torah as a matter of spiritual sanctification can actually be seen within Paul’s writing to the Galatians. Paul asks them, “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2), and “So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:5). In both verses, the Influencers’ human-derived “works of law”[rr] are contrasted with akoēs pisteōs (akohß pistewß), a genitive (case indicating possession) clause better rendered as “the hearing of faith” (KJV/NKJV). This “hearing of faith” should immediately connect us to the Shema’s imperative to hear and obey the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4-7), something which begins with love for Him and a discipleship within His covenant community.

Among Messianic interpreters, Tim Hegg has some useful thoughts on Galatians 3:12 for us to all consider:

“Apart from faith, the Torah functions only to condemn—it can never bring life (covenant membership). In fact, genuine obedience to Torah (obedience which includes right motives as well as right actions) flows from faith. Thus, the Influencers had the sequence backward: Torah does not produce faith, rather, faith produces obedience to Torah….Paul’s emphasis, therefore, in quoting Leviticus 18:5 is to show that obedience flows out of covenant membership, and not vice versa. One does not obey in order to gain covenant membership, but rather, one’s obedience is proof of covenant membership already possessed.”[ss]

The need to read Leviticus 18:5, appearing within Galatians 3:11-13, from its original context of blessing for those who live within the community of God—which one enters via faith in Him and now His Messiah—is imperative. The Torah is not intended to justify, nor is it intended to provide faith (Galatians 3:11; Habakkuk 2:4). Yeshua the Messiah was sacrificed to provide atonement for human beings’ Torah violation (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). The Torah is, however, intended to provide a means of sanctification and holy living (Galatians 3:12; Leviticus 18:5).

Romans 10:5

“For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.”

Romans 10:5 obviously needs to be read within the context of the wider issues in view, which dominate much of Romans chs. 9-11, a major part of which is the widescale Jewish rejection of Yeshua the Messiah in the First Century. There is an obvious quotation of parts of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5, even though in some English Bibles it may not be that obvious (SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS are lacking in the NASB/NASU). As can be easily seen in the bold text provided in the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (the Nestle-Aland Novum Testament Graece employs italicized Greek, which is less easier to read),

Mwushß gar grafei thn dikaiosunhn thn ek [tou] nomou oti o poihsaß auta anqrwpoß zhsetai en autoiß

Mōusēs gar graphei tēn dikaiosunēn tēn ek [tou] nomou hoti ho poiēsas auta anthrōpos zēsetai en autois.[tt]

Some kind of observation is being made in Romans 10:5, about a righteousness originating from the Torah or the Law (ek [tou] nomou, ek [tou] nomou). Within Romans 10:5, the concluding clause zēsetai en autois (zhsetai en autoiß) is correctly rendered with “live in/by them,” and not “live by that righteousness” (NASU), as it obviously refers to the Torah’s commandments. Here, it is required for us to take a broader look, at least at what Romans 10:1-6 says:

“Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Messiah is the [goal] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ‘DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, “WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?” [Deuteronomy 9:4; 30:12-14] (that is, to bring Messiah down).”

The main challenge for readers interpreting the statement about a righteousness rooted in the Torah in Romans 10:5, that eludes far too many readers and exegetes, is letting Leviticus 18:5 be read within its original context of defining life for those who live within the sphere of the Torah’s instruction. Hegg directs us, “The fundamental” and common “error that has been committed in the understanding of Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 is a hermeneutical one. First, the original context of Lev 18 has been ignored, and secondly, the meaning of the word ‘live’ has been presumed from a theological context rather than a historical, linguistic one.”[uu] In his Romans commentary, he then goes on and summarizes some of the stipulations of Leviticus ch. 18, particularly in terms of how “The statutes of God are put in opposition to the pagan ways of the nations, ways which are labeled ‘abominations.’’”[vv]

Romans 10:5 is an observation on what has been immediately stated in Romans 10:2-3. Paul states of the Jewish people of his day, “I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Romans 10:2, NIV). Paul’s further observation is, “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness” (Romans 10:3, NIV). Many of Paul’s fellow Jews had a genuine zeal for God, and they lived properly and morally, with a “righteousness that is based on Torah” (Romans 10:5, TLV) present. Many Jews of the First Century understood how Torah-keeping was to make them holy and blessed, yet because of this Torah-righteousness which is of human origin—it kept many from seeing the telos (teloß), the “goal” (CJB, Common English Bible, TLV) or “culmination” (TNIV) of the Torah, who is Yeshua the Messiah.[ww] In Hegg’s estimation, “Paul’s quote of Lev 18:5 makes perfect sense in Rom 10 as Paul continues to explain that Israel sought the righteous Torah (9:31) but did so with the wrong method: they missed the issue of faith in the Messiah Who is the very central message of the Torah.”[xx]

A righteousness rooted within the Torah, pursued not by faith but by human works (Romans 9:31-32; 10:3), is not good enough for redemption. For many First Century Jews, their human-originated righteousness via Torah-keeping may have been good on various levels. But, a human-originated righteousness, can prevent a person from seeing the Messiah. The testimony of Paul himself, in Philippians 3:6, was, “as to the righteousness which is in the Law[yy], [I was] found blameless.” He would conclude, though, that “whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Messiah” (Philippians 3:7), as human achievements compared to the sacrifice and exaltation of the Lord Yeshua often just amount to “rubbish” (Philippians 3:8) or “refuse” (RSV).

A widescale problem for many First Century Jews—and certainly for many religious people since—was establishing a human righteousness rooted within God’s Torah. As Paul sadly stated, “they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were from works” (Romans 9:32, TLV). When human beings pursue their own righteousness, even if rooted within God’s Law, at best what you get are those who live generally good lives within the sphere of the Bible, and experience a high level of material blessing in following the Father’s safeguards for life on Earth. This, however, is often not a righteousness or trusting in the Lord, which is definitively required for salvation (Romans 10:6-13). A mortal, human righteousness—even if rooted within God’s Torah—can mean very little to the One who asks for us to place our complete faith and trust in Him, and what He has planned for human history and individuals’ lives.

Romans 10:4 explains how the Messiah is the telos, the goal, aim, purpose, consummation, or climax even, of the Torah of Moses—as He provides righteousness to those who believe in Him. In Romans 10:5, we see that the most that those who seek a human righteousness originating from the Torah or Law, is that they will experience a degree of blessing by living its commandments. As good as this may be, it is not enough to have eternal redemption.

The reference to Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 should be taken as a positive assessment of the Torah, and that many First Century Jews—even though unable to see Yeshua in the Torah—were indeed doing good things, as they ordered their lives according to the Torah’s commandments. The most or the best that can be hoped for in just following Moses’ Teaching, though, is a blessed and prosperous life in this world. But, it is not human righteousness that is to be rooted within the Torah—holiness or sanctification is to be what is rooted within the Torah. Righteousness is to be rooted within the work of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), who provides redemption and can bestow “abounding in riches for all who call on Him” (Romans 10:12). The Torah’s instruction is surely not nullified or abolished in the Messiah (Romans 3:31), but its condemnation upon sinners is lifted (Romans 8:1). As the redeemed in Yeshua walk by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is to provide men and women the impetus to actually fulfill God’s Law (Romans 8:4).

To review, the purpose of Leviticus 18:5 is to define how people are to live blessed and happy lives by conducting themselves in obedience to God’s Torah. The specific instructions in view in Leviticus ch. 18 are being aware of various sexual regulations that would surely set Ancient Israel apart from the Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Canaanites. These are instructions, most notably, that no part of the Holy Scriptures can ever be said to be found speaking against. The Leviticus 18 instructions, unlike something such as the rite of circumcision, were never something abused or which took on a hyper-nationalistic significance for the First Century Jewish community.[zz] These are instructions from Moses’ Teaching that were non-negotiable to be followed, as laid forth by the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:19-21).[aaa]

The New Covenant, of course, promises the redeemed in Yeshua a supernatural transcription of God’s commandments onto the hearts and minds of all the redeemed (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27)—and with it the supernatural compulsion to obey Moses’ Teaching.[bbb] For those found in the Messiah, while keeping the Torah’s commandments will not merit or earn eternal life, keeping commandments will surely bring great blessings as people live holy lives and accomplish the Lord’s tasks, diligently serving Him as He says, “you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Obeying or not obeying the Lord, will of course, result in His people being granted or withheld various rewards when His Kingdom comes (cf. Matthew 5:16-19).

NOTES

posted 30 September, 2011

Liturgy, Hebrew: What do you think about the use of Hebrew liturgy in Messianic congregations?

There are generally two extremes that one encounters among Messianic congregations as it relates to Hebrew liturgy: (1) those who rely on liturgy exclusively, and (2) those who see no value in liturgy at all. Those who rely on liturgy exclusively for prayers and worship are those that often embrace a strictly Orthodox Jewish style of halachah, whereas those who often see no value in liturgy are largely influenced by charismatic and/or Pentecostal Christianity.

Any cursory examination of Second Temple Judaism will reveal that liturgical prayer and worship were important parts of the religious expression of Jewish life. For the most part, the type of liturgy from this period that was used included singing Scripture to music, employing Psalms in daily and corporate prayer, and various other praises issued to God in the Temple service. While varied traditions existed from community to community, and between Judean and Diaspora Judaism, liturgy was nevertheless an important part of the Jewish world Yeshua and the Apostles were a part of.

The use of liturgy was not only limited to ancient Jewish worship, because the early Christian movement of the Second Century modeled its worship style after the Synagogue, employing many of the same prayers or praises, as well as new prayers or praises based on the Gospels and Apostolic texts. Certainly, spontaneous prayers were also a major part of early Christian worship, probably more so than what we see in the Synagogue. Also significantly different was the First Century ekklēsia’s integration of Yeshua into a Jewish monotheistic worship of HaShem (YHWH) as demonstrated by hymns such as the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2:5-11. Throughout most of Christian history, liturgical worship has given structure to corporate services, notably being seen today in the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican traditions. There are also strands of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches that can be considered “high Church Protestant.”

Today’s emerging Messianic movement sits between the two major liturgical traditions seen in Judaism and Christianity. Not surprisingly, many Messianic congregations use Jewish liturgy to structure their worship services. Most Messianic congregations do not use the amount of liturgy that an Orthodox synagogue would employ, and so the amount is usually somewhere in between what is seen in Conservative and/or Reform synagogues—not that much unlike various Protestant traditions that use a moderate amount of liturgy. There are some Messianic congregations that use no liturgy at all, or for that matter have a structured worship service, often modeling themselves off of a style of charismatic Christian worship unique to the Twentieth, and now Twenty-First Century.

We would encourage Messianic congregations to use a moderate amount of liturgy, be it in the form of traditional prayers and praises, as a way to not only give structure and organization to worship—but also to invite a reverent attitude to the assembly. It can be easily said that with all of the vibrant song and dance seen at many Messianic congregations, there does need to be a moment when the music stops, there is no dancing, and the people join in one accord and one voice in proclaiming who God is. Of course, the amount of liturgy to be used is an issue that must be determined by the local needs of an assembly. Likewise, not all of the liturgy need be in Hebrew, as a significant amount of it can be done in English (or whatever other native language is spoken).

For a further discussion of this, and related subjects, consult the editor’s article “The Proper Protocol.”

updated 22 October, 2008

Lord’s Day (first of the week): I have been taught that the Apostles met on the first day of the week, Sunday, which was the Lord’s Day. How do you reconcile this with the belief that they kept the Sabbath?

It is important to understand the Hebraic way of how time is determined. Genesis 1:5b says, “there was evening and there was morning, one day,” a literary device used throughout most of Genesis 1. From the start of Creation, it has been understood that the day Biblically begins in the evening. J.H. Hertz notes in his work Pentateuch & Haftorahs, “The day, according to the Scriptural reckoning of time, begins with the preceding evening” (p 2). The Sabbath or Shabbat begins on what we consider to be Friday evening and ends on Saturday evening. The first day begins on what we often consider to be Saturday evening. When the early Believers in the First Century met on the “first day,” it would not have been on Sunday as we consider it, but it would rather have been on Saturday evening to commemorate Havdalah, which is a customary tradition following the departure of the Sabbath as the upcoming six working days are consecrated unto God. Acts 20:7 in the NEB correctly reflects that the meeting of the Believers at Troas took place “On the Saturday night.”

As the emerging Christian Church separated itself from its Hebraic Roots by the beginning of the Second Century, the “first day” took on a new meaning as the Jewish leadership was replaced by non-Jewish leadership that had not been reared in the Synagogue. The Romans considered the new day to begin at 12:00 Midnight, as does today’s modern Western calendar.

As far as “the Lord’s Day” is concerned, it is important to note that the phrase only appears once in the Bible itself. It appears in Revelation 1:10 when the Apostle John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Most Christian expositors believe that this was Sunday. But this conclusion cannot be drawn from internal evidence within the Scriptures themselves. The Greek phrase tē kuriakē hēmera (th kuriakh hmera) speaks of a day or time period that is specifically becoming of the Lord. Given the scope of the subject matter of the Book of Revelation, it is more likely that “the Lord’s Day” is in actuality speaking of the Day of the LORD or Yom ADONAI (hwhy ~Ay), spoken of quite frequently in the Tanach (Old Testament) in relation to the end-times. The only difference with the usage of “Lord’s Day” instead of “Day of the Lord” is the fact that the emphasis is on the Lord rather than the time period itself. This is evidenced by the fact that Revelation is indeed a revealing of Yeshua the Messiah to His servant John (1:1), and Yeshua’s defeat over Satan is the overarching theme of the book at the End of the Age.

External evidence suggests that by the early Second Century the phrase “the Lord’s Day” became attached to Sunday, which by this time had supplanted the Biblical Sabbath. The first extra-Biblical usages of “the Lord’s Day” occur in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch. In about 110-120 C.E., about twenty years after the death of John, Ignatius wrote that we are to “no longer [be] observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 9). He also wrote, “It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 10), as he considered anything having to do with the Torah or the Sabbath to be antiquated and largely obsolete. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7 Paul wrote, “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work,” and by the early Second Century it was already well in force as the Torah was being widely discarded for new ways determined by the new generations of Church leadership.

Internal Scriptural evidence is clear that the early Apostles and Believers kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and that Sunday did not fully come onto the scene until after the death of the Apostles and some of their immediate successors.

updated 02 February, 2006

Luke 16:19-31: What do those who believe in psychopannychy/soul sleep do about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?

Luke 16:19-31 is probably the third most consulted Bible passage as it concerns the discussion surrounding a disembodied afterlife prior to the resurrection. The reason this is the case is not terribly difficult to discern as it depicts what occurs to both the rich man and Lazarus after they die:

“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom” (Luke 16:22-23).

Following the death of these two people, both are taken to Hadēs (adhß) or the netherworld of the deceased, its Hebrew equivalent being Sheol (lAav). While Sheol/Hades can often be associated as being a place of punishment, Darrell L. Bock details how in much of Second Temple Jewish thought, “The righteous (2 Macc. 6:23; 1 Enoch 102.4-5) and unrighteous (Ps. Sol. 14:6, 9-10; 15:10) both reside there, though they are separated from one another (1 Enoch 22).”[a] That there is disembodied conscious activity occurring in this place is unavoidable, including some degree of discomfort for the rich man (Luke 16:24), and a degree of solace for Lazarus (Luke 16:25). The rich man begs Abraham for him to be returned to the world of the living, so that he might warn his family members what will become of them if they fail to repent of their sins and live uprightly (Luke 16:27-31).

Those who are psychopannychists or advocates of “soul sleep” have a definite problem with this parable—because it serves as Yeshua the Messiah’s clear usage of a disembodied afterlife before the resurrection to teach an important lesson to His hearers. Lazarus and the rich man both die, their consciousnesses are transported to another dimension, and life on Earth with the survivors they leave behind continues as normal. The location of these two is Sheol/Hades, with Abraham’s bosom serving as the side for the righteous,[b] separated from a side for the condemned, by a significant gulf (Luke 16:26). Angels take them both to this place (Acts 16:22). The afterlife venue of Sheol/Hades being divided into two compartments is witnessed in the works of the First Century Jewish historian Josephus (Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades 1, 4).[c]

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31, is by no means a Biblical passage that can have its entire meaning change by a word or two being translated differently. It is not like Paul’s remark in Acts 17:28, where paganism is being used as a communication reference point: “…even some of your own poets have said…” The location of the story is another dimension after death. Those who challenge the idea of an intermediate, disembodied afterlife before the resurrection have no choice but to contest that the entire scene of Luke 16:19-31 is fictional. They have to suggest that Yeshua the Messiah used some kind of popular Jewish mythology to teach an important lesson about people living a life properly on Earth, and that the details of the account of Lazarus and the rich man do not matter if the moral is heeded. Not only do psychopannychists who treat Luke 16:19-31 as largely fictional raise a number of critical questions about Biblical inerrancy and authorial intent, but if Lazarus and the rich man is to be taken as an entirely fictional account (notwithstanding fictional characters)—then this would be the only scene in the Gospels where an entirely fictional/mythological/fantasaical location is employed in Yeshua’s teachings.

To the psychopannychist who believes that there is no conscious activity for the deceased between death and resurrection—anything that would imply some kind of post-mortem, conscious, disembodied intermediate state has to be ignored as either allegory or some kind of fiction. Did Yeshua the Messiah use non-Biblical concepts—such as a disembodied afterlife believed by many of His Jewish contemporaries—to teach Biblical lessons? Unscriptural concepts employed to confirm Scriptural ethics…with the ends justifying the means?! If you think this is something quite disturbing, and that the Messiah would not willfully deceive anyone in His parables by employing some kind of fictional afterlife scenario, then you are not alone.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, a Seventh-Day Adventist psychopannychist, argues stridently that “A literal interpretation of the parable…contradicts the uniform testimony of the Old and New Testaments that the dead, both righteous and ungodly, lie silent and unconscious in death…”[d] For him, at least, Luke 16:19-31 is just a story used by the Lord to teach, perhaps just to gain some kind of an audience who would not hear Him otherwise. It is mostly fiction, yet good fiction to spur on ethical maturation. But if Luke 16:19-31 employs a fictional setting with no conscious activity at all occurring in Sheol/Hades, then Yeshua of Nazareth could be legitimately accused of misleading or manipulating audiences with His words.

It is ironic, though, that in contrast to Bacchiocchi there are psychopannychist commentators on the Gospel of Luke—who while personally affirming that there is no conscious activity between death and the resurrection—say that the only way the account of Lazarus and the rich man can be at all understood, is to affirm a disembodied intermediate state on literary grounds:

·  E. Earle Ellis: “The picture of judgment and reward immediate at death is contrary to the usual New Testament understanding…Probably it should be understood simply as a part of the setting of the story.”[e]

·  Joel B. Green: “[T]his text probably assumes an intermediate state…[T]he notion of the disembodied existence of a soul must be read into the story since the characters in Hades act as human agents with a corporeal existence.”[f]

If the account of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 is just, in fact, Yeshua the Messiah reworking some of the mythology and misunderstandings that the Jews of His time had incorrectly adopted—then we need to seriously question the judgment of Luke for including this parable in his Gospel. (This would be especially true given the wide number of Greeks and Romans who would read it, including Luke’s own patron Theophilus.[g]) If psychopannychy or “soul sleep” really is what the Scriptures teach, it would also be most appropriate for us to question the judgment of Yeshua Himself for speaking this parable, knowing how people for centuries to come later might be grossly confused into thinking that there actually is some kind of temporary, disembodied afterlife before the resurrection.[h]

Throughout the Holy Scriptures, there are examples of the Biblical narrative deliberately subverting local myths. As in the case of the Exodus 15 Song of the Sea, forces of nature like water or wind or the habitation of a mountain are employed to affirm the God of Israel as supreme over the deities of Canaan.[i] Other forms of subversion in Scripture occur where Biblical instruction runs in stark contrast to errant worldly philosophy, or where there is some degree of agreement between the Bible and pagan philosophy with one or two key areas of significant difference, with the Bible definitely having the upper hand.[j] The account of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 bears no such subversion: both Lazarus and the rich man die and are transported to another dimension. An affirmation of an intermediate afterlife prior to the resurrection certainly finds support from this story used by the Lord. Yet, following the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven, Abraham’s bosom was eventually vacated with the righteous saints going to Heaven with Him (cf. Ephesians 4:8-10) and with subsequent deceased saints now going to Heaven (cf. 2 Timothy 4:18).

If psychopannychists are correct, and in the account of Lazarus and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 Yeshua the Messiah really did employ complete fiction to teach ancient people a lesson—then it behooves us to consider other such possible examples within the Bible. When the possibility of other fictional settings and stories, and utter mythology, making its way into the Bible is evaluated—one section of material which immediately should be critically dissected for accuracy is Genesis chs. 1-11. This should then be followed by us being critical of the historicity and reliability of both the Exodus and Conquest records in the Tanach.

While there are a significant number of contemporary Christian psychopannychists who are either liberal theologians, or Left-leaning evangelicals—most of today’s Messianic “soul sleepers” are frequently found to hold to a rather hyper-literal reading of the Bible. To their credit, they would have a great deal of trouble considering some of the early parts of the Torah to be Ancient Near Eastern mythology packaged into the Scriptures. A great number of today’s Messianic psychopannychists hold to a rigid six 24-day Creation week from Genesis 1, and a 6,000-year old or so young universe—and from it they frequently make various end-time predictions and prognostications.[k] But they are grossly inconsistent in their literalness if they treat Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 as being some kind of a local fairy tale that Yeshua used for His teaching.

If there is nothing factually reliable about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31, then we have opened a dangerous door that questions Biblical inerrancy. We become liberal theologians who espouse things like: “The Bible says many things, and gives us many points of view.”[l]

NOTES

posted 29 March, 2011

Lunar Sabbath: What do you think of the Lunar Sabbath theory?

We believe that there is no Biblical basis or historical evidence at all for the Lunar Sabbath theory. It is not acknowledged as having been practiced in ancient times by anyone in the scholastic community. The Sabbath or Shabbat is very clearly to be on a set seventh day of the week, which on our modern day calendar is commonly known as “Saturday.” The belief being espoused is that when the New Moon or Rosh Chodesh is spotted, then seven days after this is the Sabbath. This is extremely problematic when the New Moon is spotted in the middle of the six-day period from Sabbath to Sabbath, because then the counting to the Sabbath must start over and it is possible for one not to have a Sabbath rest for a period of 13 days.

posted 06 February, 2006

$30.00 including U.S. shipping & handling

$25.00 including U.S. shipping & handling

$25.00 including U.S. shipping & handling