08/10/2013 Sabbath Broadcast Transcript


"Response to Common Objections about the Law, Part 2""


EliYah's message:

I am looking forward to sharing another installment here on a continuation basically of last week's message, which seemed to be well received and several people requested Part 2. Basically, last week, if you missed it, we went over a response that I had received from a pastor, a Baptist pastor.

And I had given this talk on "Is the Law Jewish?" And that particular study can be found on the transcripts page: http://www.eliyah.com/transcripts/. I had given this to someone that I knew and then they forwarded it to their pastor, and their pastor sent a response to this study to them, which in turn was forwarded to me.

And then I wrote a reply to that, forwarded it to this other person, which they in turn forwarded it to their pastor. And then the pastor wrote a reply back to them to my original response, and they forwarded it back to me. And this is actually the last one on the carousel here.

And in this Baptist pastor's letter-- or reply, or response, or rebuttal, or whatever you want to call it-- he brought out some of the most commonly used objections to why a person would no longer, in the eyes of many, be compelled to observe the Law of Yahweh.

And so, today's study is Part 2 called: "A Response to Common Objections about the Law - Part 2."

And we see that many pastors have been trained to respond to what they consider to be false doctrine. And this is the "canned" or trained reply, which I don't have any doubt, in the eyes of many pastors, seems like a genuine and very good response to this claim that we have.

To some people the idea that we need to be observing Yahweh's Law sounds so far-fetched and so out of touch and so ridiculous they won't even give it a second look. They will hear about it, they will blow it off, and they will go on about their business.

But if you take a moment and really study it from the pages of Scripture-- maybe not the pages of the seminary textbooks, maybe not the pages of the church fathers, maybe not popular theology-- but just from the pages of Scripture, there is a very compelling case to be made for why we should observe the Law of Yahweh.

And a lot of the things that are commonly believed today as a legitimate objection to that, when put under the scrutiny of Yahweh's Word-- in the New Testament and the Old-- a very radical concept comes forth. And that is, yes, even today, in 2013, Yahweh wants us to observe His Law.

And for many people, they say in their minds, "Well, how could that be? How could all of two thousand years of Christianity possibly be wrong? How could all of these people possibly be deceived? That can't be.

"What about my Uncle Joe? or my Uncle... whoever? or my grandma? or my parents? or my friend? They seem to be very sincere believers. How could they be deceived?"

Well, it is possible for us to be a believer and still be deceived about something or be misinformed about something. But if our heart is in the right place, Yahweh can overlook our ignorance if we are sincerely seeking to understand and do our Father's will.

We still have the repentant heart. We may not fully understand all He is wanting us to do, but our heart is in the right place. And so, I don't judge the pastor who wrote me this letter. I don't judge his heart. I don't know what he is thinking as he hears the things I am sharing. And I don't claim to know anyone's heart completely.

So I don't worry about the judging part of it. I do know that maybe there is some area that I don't yet understand, and if I condemn somebody else for their lack of understanding, what about myself?

And so, I try to look at this from a perspective of we want mercy. We want compassion. We want to do what is right and holy and good. We want to do all those things. But what does the Word say? That is the most important question. What does the Word say? And that is the question we all have to answer for ourself.

I can't answer it for you. You have to examine it for yourself. And so, I encourage you, consider the things that I am sharing with you today and see if whether or not this is right, whether or not this is true.

So I am sure a lot of us who already believe in observing Yahweh's Law will get these kinds of e-mails or these kinds of responses from many well-meaning Christian believers. And, again, I don't have any issue with trying to judge somebody's heart because I don't really know.

And so, you may get these kinds of responses. And this is, I feel, an important thing for all of us to go over. What are the objections? What are the things people say that would cause them to believe that we are wrong about this? With an open mind, let's look at the things that they are saying.

So I wrote last week some points what I feel would be counter points to the things the pastor had brought up to me in his letter. And then, he wrote back to me some points to try and refute what I was saying. And this is all done respectfully without condemnation, without judgment.

And so, let's go ahead and move forward with this. These are the things that he wrote.

The first thing I had said in my letter was that, according to the Scriptures (1 John chapter 3, verse 4), sin is the transgression of the Law. And so, here are his comments to me-- actually to the person I was writing to initially.

The pastor said: "Sin is a transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. "The word 'law' is 'anomia'"-- in the Greek, I presume-- "and is translated iniquity or iniquities 13 times."

So he has done some research here. And he looked up the Greek for the word translated "transgression of the law," and he found that it was translated "iniquity" or "iniquities" 13 times. And that is fine to do that.

The question is... 1 John 3:4, was it wrong in the translation "transgression of the law"? Was "iniquity" a wrong translation of "anomia"? The question is, what does the word actually mean, because what we have in this term "iniquity", what we have in 1 John 3:4, is a definition of what sin or iniquity actually is.

And so, he goes on to say: "In 1 John 3:4, the word transgresseth is 'anomia' which is translated 'law' one time in the verse."

So it looks like he has done a Strong's Lexicon look-up here. And he has found that this word "transgresseth," and he found the word "law," both of these words, he found, as coming from the Greek, "anomia."

Then he says: "The first word 'law' is also 'anomia' and the four words, 'transgression of the law' is also anomia."

All right, so if we are looking at 1 John 3:4 - "Whosoever commits sin 'transgresses' also 'the law' [anomia]: for sin is the 'transgression of the law' [anomia]," he is saying this word ("transgression"), this word ("the law"), and this one here ("the law"), are all "anomia."

 1John 3:4 - Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

"So, actually, the Greek word 'anomia' is used three times in this verse."

All right. Well, this is not actually true if you look in the Greek itself and not just look up a Strong's word.

He found it here ("the law"). This is from "anomia" in the Strong's Lexicon. This ("transgression") is from "anomia" in the Strong's Lexicon. This ("the law") is from "anomia" in the Strong's Lexicon. And, actually, he would have found a fourth one here ("transgresses"), "anomia" in the Strong's Lexicon.

Now the reason why the Greek word appears three or four times is simply because this word "anomia" is translated into a phrase: "transgression of the law." This word "anomia" (one word) is actually translated into four words: "transgression of the law." And here it is translated "transgresses the law."

So the word "anomia" is found twice. The first time it is translated: "transgresses" also "the law." The second time it is translated: "transgression of the law." I am not sure if he realized that.

And he says: "Possibly, to better understand this verse, we would translate it, 'Whoever practices sin, does also lawlessness or iniquity, and sin is iniquity or lawlessness.' So John is not really speaking of the law of Moses in this text."

So his basis for saying this is not speaking of the Law of Moses is that a possible translation would be "lawlessness" or "iniquity." So that is his reasoning for saying it cannot be referring to the Law of Moses. It is just referring to iniquity or lawlessness.

Well, let's suppose it is referring to lawlessness. What law is he talking about when he says "lawless"? We don't want to be lawless. What law is he talking about?

Well, that is where culture has basically redefined sin. Historical Christianity has redefined what sin is, and the definition that is commonly given is the definition that is different than what I am actually reading in the Bible.

In the minds of most Christians, quite possibly the term "sin" would simply mean disobedience to the will of our Father in heaven. But what we have in actual Scripture is a more descriptive definition-- a "transgression of the law."

So in looking at this, I wrote back, and I said: "I agree that sin is anything contrary to Yahweh's will. I agree with that. However, the question I am really addressing is: What is His will? What is sin?

"A very important thing you may have missed here, if you look in your Strong's Lexicon, as it defines 1 John 3:4 as anomia. And in that definition we have this: '458, anomia, is from 459,' and it means 'illegality, i.e. violation of the law or genitive case, wickedness.'

"And so, the real meaning is 'illegality' or 'violation of the law.' That is the strict definition of the word. And that is important to realize."

So I made this point, and I said: "Suppose somebody did something illegal such as driving 65 mph in a 35 mph zone. That is no different than saying they have violated or they have transgressed the law. So if it is illegal, it means it is against the law. And so, illegality here-- why it is illegal-- is simply because the Law of Yahweh is in effect."

The fact that we would have this term "illegality" as a definition of what sin is demonstrates clearly that "violation of the law" is what defines sin. If something is legal, that means it is according to the law, right? If it is illegal, that means it is against the law. So the illegality here in 1 John 3:4 is a clear reference to the Law of Yahweh.

Sin is the violation of or the transgression of Yahweh's Law. It is doing something illegal. That is what iniquity actually is. That is what sin actually is.

Now the reason why the Strong's Lexicon defines this word "anomia" as "illegality" is because it comes from another term. It says "from 459." Notice that.

And the reason why it defines it as "illegality" is because from 459 we get another word, "anomos." And "anomos," according to the Thayer's Lexicon, means "destitute of the Mosaic Law." That is what it means-- the Law of Moses.

Thayer's Lexicon: 459 anomos {an'-om-os} Meaning: 1) destitute of (the Mosaic) law 1a) of the Gentiles 2) departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked.

And then, you notice here, this particular word comes from two words: "a," which is the "a" here in the word "anomos," and then "nomos."

Origin: from 1 (as a negative particle) and 3551.

And "nomos" is the word translated "law" all throughout the New Testament. That is the only translation: law.

3551. nomos nom'-os from a primary nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specially, (of Moses (including the volume); also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):--law.

So I find that quite interesting that "anomia" comes from "anomos," and "nomos" simply means "the law," "the Torah," "Yahweh's Law." And when you put the "a" in front of it, that is the negative particle-- "a" (negative) "law." So we have: "against law" or "without law" or "lawless."

And so, the "a" in "anomos" and the "a" in "anomia" is simply the negative particle, whatever is "against the law." That is the definition of sin in the New Testament.

Now he does say next: "Romans 3:20, by the law is the knowledge of sin. The word 'law' is a different word. It is the word 'nomos,' [well, thank you very much... the word 'law' is 'nomos'], translated 197 times 'law,' and translated no other way, referring definitely to the Mosaic law [no doubt], but also the other ordinances God has given us."

All right, so he acknowledges in Romans chapter 3 and verse 20, "by the law is the knowledge of sin." And he quoted it there. He acknowledges that it is by the Mosaic Law (right here, he said it was by the "Mosaic law"), that we have the knowledge of sin. Great! So he acknowledges that.

And then he says: "We know sin is any act, attitude, or state of being, which is contrary to the character and will of God. In 1 John 3:4, basically, then he is saying sin is lawlessness. If we are contrary to God's Word, we are standing contrary to His will and are sinning."

Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself except I would say "Yahweh's will." So he acknowledges this, that "nomos" definitely refers to the Mosaic Law. But then he says that 1 John 3:4 is not talking about the Mosaic Law even though the term "transgression of the law" comes from "anomia," which comes from "anomos." Same word family.

And so, his argument begins to break down here right off the bat. Then he says: "So the question is are we sinning if we do not keep the Sabbath as instructed in the Old Testament, as well as the rest of the Mosaic law of the 613 commands? I do not believe we are."

That is nice that you don't believe they are, but what we just read is they are. If I transgress the Mosaic Law, we are sinning. I mean, that is what I just read in the Scriptures.

He says, "I do not believe we are." And he tells us why he doesn't believe we are even though I just read 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20. A clear acknowledgement here, at least with Romans 3:20, it is talking about the Mosaic Law.

He says: "The law is still a part of our Bible, and it's principles are there for us to follow and obey, but keeping the [and he introduces a new term here] letter of the law is not for us today, as Christ fulfilled the law, and we are not to keep those 613 commands in a literal way, but we are to keep the principles of them."

Okay. Now that is his point. And I replied back to him. I said, "Well, I don't know of any Bible verse, there is no Bible verse, that says we don't need to keep Yahweh's commandments anymore in a literal way and just keep principles of them. Where is this coming from, this idea? Is that from Scripture?"

If it did say that, I mean, one could find a reason to disobey other things they don't want to do and take literally-- like, say, the command not to bear false witness or not to steal or not to commit murder, not to take His name in vain.

"Well, that is not literal. We just keep the principle of that." Do you see where we can go with that? Anyone can say, "Well, He doesn't mean that literally." I mean, are we supposed to pick and choose?

Why pick the Sabbath commandment as the only one out of the Ten Commandments that we are unwilling to accept for what it says? Because it does not fit tradition is really, from what I am gathering, the only possible reasoning.

We cannot find, in my mind, a legitimate reasoning anywhere in the pages of Scripture to justify breaking commandment number four and say that is not literal, but then say we must keep the rest.

So I said, "All right," and he says his reasoning for this: "Well, let me try to explain it this way. In Numbers 15:32, the children of Israel found a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath. They took him before Moses and found him guilty, and the Lord directed them to stone him to death."

Then he says: "Exodus 35:3 tells us that we're to kindle no fire on the Sabbath day. Are we to keep this command? No doubt, that is what the man of Numbers 15 was doing.

"If my son gathers sticks on the Sabbath day, am I or the community of Christians to stone him? One might say we cannot do that today, because our laws forbid it, but should we obey man's law above God's law? Acts 5:29, we ought to obey God rather than men."

All right, now this is a very, very common line of reasoning that we may come in contact with in Christian circles. And the method here is: Take something from the Law that most people will not believe is valid today (or they think will sound ridiculous or outdated), and use that as a basis to justify setting the Law aside entirely.

So his basis for saying, "No, sin is not the transgression of the law," is we don't stone people. And the other one, which they felt was too strict-- picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Since those things are from the Law, wouldn't we be breaking the Law if we were to not stone a person for having violated the Sabbath? That is his line of reasoning.

Well, that is how they do it. They take something from the Law most people think is not something we would apply, and say, "Well, see? There you go. You can't rely on the Law as a definition of sin.

"Breaking the Law is not the definition of sin, because if you were to use it as the definition of sin, then you would have this problem with having to stone people."

And so, I replied back. I said, "This is a very common misconception regarding the Law. It is very important we do not confuse the moral commands of the Law with the sentencing guidelines given to the judges for having broken the Law."

Sentencing guidelines determined what punishment would be measured out if someone did actually sin-- that is, transgress the Law. They were for the judges of the land to follow, not the common man. The sentences were carried out in the context of a court system much like we have today.

For instance, if I see a man breaking the speed limit, am I breaking the law if I don't pull him over and give him a ticket? No, that is for the judges and legal authorities of the land I live in to carry out.

The United States of America expects me to follow their law, but that doesn't mean that I, not being in the capacity of a judge, go and punish someone for having broken the law. And so, I can keep the law of the United States of America without ever issuing a fine, without ever sending somebody to jail, and still be a law-abiding citizen.

Well, the same was true of Yahweh's Law. You have the MORAL LAW, which tells us what right and wrong are. The MORAL LAW tells us HOW TO LOVE YAHWEH and/or MAN. LOVE IS ALWAYS LOVE, no matter what. ABIDES FOREVER. You can't change what love is from one generation to another. Love is love.

But then, there are the SENTENCING GUIDELINES and/or REQUIRED SACRIFICES for what might have been done if someone had violated the MORAL LAW. The SENTENCING GUIDELINES would be as a result of failing to love Yahweh or man, what ought to be done. And the sacrifices, and so on. And that was always adjustable according to the circumstances.

Yahweh says:

 Romans 9:15 - For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

And so, there is the judgment and redemptive aspects of the Law, and that was to be carried out by civil authorities. But then there is the underlying moral law.

For instance, Yahweh says observe the Sabbath day. What if someone doesn't observe the Sabbath day? They would have to go to the judges and be sentenced for the crime of violating the Sabbath day.

Now I think sometimes Christians get an impression that the common people were to walk over to somebody who were breaking the Law and stone them to death without due process, because the first century Jews tried illegally to stone the Messiah several times without a fair hearing. And that is not the way it is supposed to be.

And I think maybe that has led to this misconception that in order for us to keep the Law we have to do that. But that is not true. We see within the Torah there are several aspects. There is the right and wrong, there is the judgment aspect and there is the redemptive aspect.

The judgment and the redemptive aspects deal with what ought to be done when sin actually occurs, when violation or transgression of the Law actually occurs. But then there is the aspect of right and wrong.

If Yahweh says we should keep the Sabbath day, we keep the Sabbath day. He told us to. If Yahweh says don't murder, we don't murder. These are matters of right and wrong.

The other aspects have always been changeable. Sometimes Yahweh will pardon a person and not require judgment. For instance, King David. He should have been put to death for adultery and for murder, but he was granted mercy.

Did Yahweh violate His own Law? No, He chose to have mercy upon whom He would have mercy.

The high priestly line was translated to the heavenly temple under the order of Melchizedek. Before that it was the firstborn. The firstborn were the priests. Then the sons of Aaron were the priests. To some extent, they still are of the earthly tabernacle. But it has been translated. That is, taken upward, taken upward toward the heavenly tabernacle.

The right and wrong aspects define what sin is. That has not changed. Sin is still the transgression of the Law. It still teaches us right from wrong.

And so, that is my response to those who tell me, "Well, why don't you go stone people if you keep the Law?" And for a short answer I could say, "Well, why don't you pull people over for when they surpass 65 mph? Why don't you pull them over? Are you not a law abiding citizen until you send them to jail?" Of course, not.

Likewise, I can still observe the Law and not stone anybody for having broken it and be a law abiding citizen of Israel, of the Kingdom.

And then he gave another reason why we can't keep the Law in a literal way: "In Mark 2:23, the disciples picked corn to eat on the Sabbath [these are his words] and was condemned by the Pharisees, but was not condemned by Christ.

"He speaks of David eating the shewbread, which was only for the priests, but he did not condemn David. Why? The Lord justified David. Why? The letter of the law was not imposed."

All right, my reply to this was, "Well, why wasn't the letter of the Law imposed here, after all, don't you believe that they were under the Law back then under David? And so, why wasn't the letter of the Law imposed?"

See, the truth is, our Savior's focus from a commitment to some list of dos and don'ts and shifting from an external observance to an inward motivation and intent was not a new thing. It was only new to some of the people in his immediate audience because of their misunderstandings of what the letter of the Law really was.

The Messiah's focus on the inward motivation was the same exact perspective that Yahweh Himself actually inspired in the Law.

In Deuteronomy chapter 10, verse 16, it says:

 Deuteronomy 10:16 - "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

That's right. Deuteronomy 10:16-- circumcising the heart. He is telling them, "Focus on the heart. Circumcise the heart. Don't be stiffnecked."

And the context of this (Deuteronomy 10:16), let's look at that. He says:

 Deuteronomy 30:11 - "For this commandment which I command you today [is] not [too] mysterious for you, nor [is] it far off.

12 - "It [is] not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'

13 - "Nor [is] it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'

 Deuteronomy 30:14 - "But the word [is] very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Even back then. See, David had the Law in his heart. He understood the proper meaning and intent of the Law. That is why Yahushua used David as a reference for correct interpretation of the Law. David was not bringing forth a new view, a new idea, a new way of keeping Yahweh's Law. Neither was Messiah.

Messiah was bringing out the way the Law of Yahweh was intended to be kept from the very beginning, and He used David-- a man who lived, obviously, during the Old Testament time period-- as a good example of what it really means to observe the Law of Yahweh.

And so, we can't legitimately use the Messiah's admonition here regarding David as a reason for saying, "Well, see, the letter of the Law is not imposed," because David lived during a time when it was imposed. So He is saying that David was righteous.

You see, if Yahweh's original intent regarding the Law was some external, rigid, letter-of-the-Law obedience, then Yahushua would have had to correct the Law itself. But He wasn't correcting the Law. He was correcting the Pharisees and He was holding up David as an example of how Yahweh wanted the Law to be understood from the very beginning.

I mean, we know Yahushua could not possibly have broken a single commandment in the Law even once. If He had, He, being born under the Law, would have needed a savior Himself because He broke the Law. If Yahushua was a lawbreaker, He couldn't be our Savior. Lawbreakers need forgiveness, right?

And so, He lived in a time, obviously, under the Law, and yet He is interpreting the Law in its correct way. He is not creating a new law. He is not saying the Law was wrong. He is saying the interpretation of the Pharisees was wrong.

And so, we know Messiah was a perfect sacrifice. If He would have ignored the Sabbath day, then He would have been a sinner. He would have disobeyed the Law and He could not be our Savior.

And so, I pointed out, and I said: "And so, the reasons you supplied for ignoring and forgetting the day that Yahweh has told us to remember is without scriptural support or justification."

And then, he goes on to say: "We are not under the law of Moses, because it was a part of the covenant between Israel and God, not between God and the church."

All right, so his basis for saying we are not under the Law is because it was a part of this covenant between Israel and Yahweh. All right.

So I asked him the question, as I asked him in the previous letter, "If you do not accept sin as the transgression of the Law, because the Law was a part of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh, how can you claim to be a named party to the New Covenant?"

And I asked him this the previous week. He didn't answer it, and he brought out the same point again.

Because we see here in Jeremiah 31, verse 31, it says:

 Jeremiah 31:31 - "Behold, the days are coming, says YAHWEH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --

With who? With the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The same people that the Old Covenant was made with. And here he (the pastor) is telling us we are not under the Law of Moses because it is a part of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh, not between "God and the church."

Well, who is the New Covenant with? It is with Israel and with Judah.

 Jeremiah 31:32 - "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them , says YAHWEH.

Who is "they"? Israel and Judah.

 Jeremiah 31:33 - "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says YAHWEH: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.

With who? The house of Israel.

What law? The only law that Jeremiah could possibly be referring to was the Law given through Moshe.

And so, I wrote to him: "And so, we must identify ourselves with Israel if we want to be a part of this New Covenant, because the New Covenant, just as the Old Covenant does, involves Yahweh and His people Israel.

"We also see that the New Covenant involves the Law being placed in our minds, written on our hearts. The more obedient we are to His Law, the more evident it is we have the Law there in our hearts. That is what it means to have the Law in our heart-- that we are obedient to it. That is what it means."

You see in Psalm 119, verse 11:

 Psalms 119:11 - Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You!

 Deuteronomy 30:14 - "But the word [is] very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

So if His Law, His word, is in our heart, we won't transgress the Law, we won't sin, that we may do it. That is what it means to have the Law in our hearts. We do it and we don't sin against Him.

And so, the Law being placed in our hearts does not mean we are going to have some kind of wild new interpretation of what it says and we are free to ignore what it clearly does say. Much to the contrary. It means that we will be obedient to it, to its original intent and purpose.

The fact that the Law is in our hearts does not mean it is internalized now, as some claim, as if to say it used to be external only and now it is internal. It was always internal. It was always to be in their hearts, that they may do it.

And so, when Yahushua was saying it's wrong to lust after a woman in your heart, this was nothing new. In fact, the tenth commandment-- don't covet your neighbor's wife-- was a commandment that could only be broken in the heart.

And so, the idea of the Law being internalized is not a new concept. It is right from the Ten Commandments. And so, the commandment written in stone against coveting, there is only one place that can happen, and that is in the heart. And so, the Law was always focused on the heart. Even the laws written on tables of stone were focused on the heart.

Deuteronomy 6, verse 5 says you shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all of your... outward motivations and outward obedience? No!

 Deuteronomy 6:5 - "You shall love YAHWEH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

This is talking about internal stuff here.

 Leviticus 19:17 - `You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.

18 - `You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I [am] YAHWEH.

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge. That only happens in the heart, right? bearing grudges? From the heart comes love. These things have always been true.

And so, his point that we only obey the principles and that is a new thing now, we do this differently now, we were supposed to always have been obeying the principles, because it really was always about the heart from the very beginning. It was always about the heart.

In fact, it says in Exodus 23 verse 4:

 Exodus 23:4 - "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.

What is He telling us here? What is the underlying principle? Love your enemies.

 Proverbs 24:17 - Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles;

Where does that happen? In your heart. Do not rejoice. Do not let your heart be glad. So it was always about the heart. And He always wanted us to love our enemies.

What Messiah was bringing forth was not some radical new teaching that was something vastly different than what was taught in the Old Testament. It was only vastly different because it was different than what the people of His day were teaching.

They were focused on the outward and that was never Yahweh's intent anytime in history. In fact, He hated that.

So then he says: "Yes, we keep its principles of separation, holiness, relationship with others, but Christ did take it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. Colossians 2:14. We are not to choose what can be kept and what cannot be kept, as you said."

Interesting, because he quoted me next where I told him (my comment): "If I told my son to do something, and he was truly not able to do it, I would not charge him with wrong." And his reply to that was: "Oh, but you cannot do that with God's law."

Well, I am sorry, but my reply to that is: "You cannot separate His Law from His character as if there is something different about His Law than there is about His character."

If our heavenly Father was ever so unfair in judgment as to condemn a person for disobeying a commandment that was impossible for us to keep, then that is not the same heavenly Father I read about in the Scriptures. I don't care what book you are reading from.

In fact, one of the weightier matters of the Law is mercy. Yahushua said in Matthew 23:23:

 Matthew 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier [matters] of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

How about that? Mercy is a part of the Law? Yes, it is. In the Law, Yahweh talks about His mercy all the time. It is all over the place. Even in the Ten Commandments. He says "showing mercy to thousands, to those who keep my commandments." He talks about His mercy all over the Law.

And so, this concept that the Law is this rigid set of instructions that Yahweh is going to hold you to whether you can do it or can't do it is contrary to His character. It is contrary to His Law as well. His character is one of mercy, and His Law-- in fact, one of the weightier matters of His Law-- is mercy.

And so, again, the letter of the Law was never, as he described it, at any time Yahweh's intent. If we are observing Yahweh's Law, we will recognize when mercy is supposed to be implemented.

David was under the Law, yet he rightly judged the intent of the Law. He ate the showbread and was blameless. So you can do that with Yahweh's Law, and you do have to understand its intent.

It was the scribes and the Pharisees that turned the Law of Yahweh into some rigid legal code of dos and don'ts and even added a thousand or more ordinances on top of it. They condemned the Messiah for picking corn to eat because they believed it was considered illegally harvesting on the Sabbath.

But starving on the Sabbath was never Yahweh's intent for the Sabbath. It was never wrong to save the life of an ox that had fallen into a ditch or to do good on the Sabbath day.

Yahushua and His disciples were doing nothing wrong by picking grains and eating them. Their choice was either to starve on the Sabbath or rub the grains of stalk and eat them.

And so, the illustration of David either starving or eating showbread shows that their legal codes that they had set up were unbiblical, unscriptural, and Messiah picked a perfect example of how Yahweh's Law was intended to be observed.

The scribes and Pharisees, though, had their ordinances of men, which they laid on shoulders of men that were hard to bear, and they were adding to Yahweh's Law when Yahweh had said, in Deuteronomy 12:32, "Whatever I command you, observe it, but don't take away and don't add to."

And so, they were adding to Yahweh's Law extra things that were not biblical. And that was a sin in and of itself.

So Yahushua was actually telling them that they were transgressing the Law so they can keep their tradition. How many times did He tell them that? Matthew 15:3.

These sinful acts of adding to the Law man's own things were among the things that Yahushua had to bear for us, because it is a sin to add to or to take away. They became sin for us. They were nailed to the tree. Not the Law, but the sins were nailed to the tree along with Messiah just as the prophets spoke.

In Isaiah 53, "The iniquities of us all were laid upon Him." So the Messiah was prophesied to bear our iniquities. And so, when He became sin for us and sin was nailed to the tree along with Him, that is what it means when it says that the dogmas were nailed to the tree. And we went over this last week.

You see, the Law of Yahweh was not the problem. The Law of Yahweh was not something that needed to be crucified and killed. The Law of Yahweh was not the problem. The problem was sin. It still is. The problem was our choice to transgress that Law.

And so, now that we have been justified by His blood, why would we say, "Well, the Law has been taken away, so I am no longer guilty"? No, it is not the Law that was taken away. It was our sin that was taken away. It wasn't the Law that was nailed to the tree. It was our sin that was nailed to the tree.

And the ordinances and laws and dogmas of men were among those sins that needed to be nailed to the tree. If Yahushua had to die for us because we broke the Sabbath day, why would we go off and do it again? I mean, it was either right or it was wrong to break the Sabbath day.

And so, contrary to modern opinion, Yahushua did not come to save us from that big bad Law and that angry Jehovah God that wants to stand over you with a stick and alienate you. He came to magnify the Law. He came to make it honorable again. He came to deliver us who were bound by our own transgression, because we did not keep Yahweh's Law.

It was our sin that was the problem, not the Law.

Isaiah 42:21 says, talking about the Messiah:

 Isaiah 42:21 - YAHWEH is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law and make [it] honorable.

It doesn't say He is going to nail it to a tree. It says He is going to exalt it.

 Isaiah 42:22 - But this [is] a people robbed and plundered; All of them are snared in holes, And they are hidden in prison houses; They are for prey, and no one delivers; For plunder, and no one says, "Restore!"

They were robbed by the teachers of their day, hidden in prison houses-- synagogues-- and nobody says, "Restore!"

So Yahushua came along to exalt the Law because it was being replaced by man's law. And so, Yahushua did not come to take away the Law so that we would not be held responsible for breaking it. He came to cleanse us of our transgressions of the Law and to demonstrate a holy example of what it really means to keep the Law.

Following in Messiah's footsteps is all I am trying to do. And I know that if I were to walk in His footsteps, His footprint would be where I place my foot. I know absolutely He observed the Sabbath day and the rest of Yahweh's commandments.

But he is hanging onto this Colossians chapter 2, verse 14 - "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances." This word here, "ordinances," is the Greek word, as I pointed out last week, "dogma."

He says: "The word 'handwriting' is 'cheirographon,' which basically means 'that which is written down.' It is only used once in the New Testament. The word 'ordinances,' as you say, is the word 'dogma.' I do disagree that it is always used in reference to the ordinances of man, although sometimes it is used that way."

Now if you missed last week's study, what I am about ready to go over I might lose you a little bit here. But what I basically shared last week was, this term "ordinances," in Colossians 2:14, is referring to the ordinances of man, not the ordinances of Yahweh.

And he is saying, no, that it is sometimes used in reference to the Scriptures, the ordinances of Yahweh. He says sometimes it is used in reference to the ordinances of man. Sometimes. But sometimes it is used as the ordinances of the Law of Yahweh.

He says: "It is used and translated as the word 'decrees' in Acts 16:4 as the decrees of the apostles, but were from God. Ephesians 2:5, it's translated 'ordinances,' which does refer to the Old Testament law. God's moral law is written in the hearts of all men."

Really? It is written in the hearts of everybody? I thought it was only written in the hearts of those who are joined in the New Covenant. Anyway...

"Colossians 2:14 is definitely speaking of God's ordinances in the Old Testament. The reason I believe He uses this word, instead of the usual word for law, 'nomos,' is because He wanted to include it all: law, feasts, sacrifices, etc."

All right, so his point is the reason why "nomos" is not used in Colossians 2:14 is because now he is not just talking about overall Law. He is talking about the Feast days, sacrifices, and things like that. And he uses the reference here in Acts 16:4 as evidence that, yes, it does refer to Yahweh's Law.

Okay, so let's take a look... and he also uses Ephesians 2:5. I wrote back, and I said, "If all the Law, which you say are 'dogmas,' were nailed to the cross, were abolished, then why are the apostles commanding Gentiles to keep dogmas in Acts 16 verse 4?"

It says:

 Acts 16:4 - And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

The "decrees" or the "dogma."

And, you know, actually, those dogmas that they were told to keep there in Acts 15 are not even from the Law of Moses. They're not. In fact, what they were given in these is from the beginning.

Not to eat blood. That was forbidden in Genesis. Sexual immorality, obviously, was forbidden from the beginning. From things strangled and from idolatry, those are not decrees from the Law of Moses.

The reason why "dogma" is used in Acts 16:4 is not because these are decrees from the Law of Moses, but because this is something that was established by men. It was a decision made by men.

The apostles and elders at Jerusalem had issued a dogma. Now this particular dogma was biblical and was righteous and was good. And some dogmas are righteous and good. Some dogmas are not.

Well, obviously, the dogmas that were nailed to the tree would be dogmas that are not good-- sin. The dogmas that are good, why would you have any reason to nail them to a tree?

So I replied. I said, "If the dogmas were nailed to the cross, why are the apostles telling them to keep dogmas?"

And we have Luke chapter 2 verse 1. It says:

 Luke 2:1 - And it came to pass in those days [that] a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

A "dogma." Now there is a clear example of a dogma of men. A clear example.

So the dogmas are referring to human decrees. They are not referring to Yahweh's Law, unless that particular human decree included something that was according to Yahweh's Law. That would be the only instance.

Now the dogmas of Colossians 2 are clearly spoken and identified as commandments of men.

 Colossians 2:18 - Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in [false] humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 - and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase [that is] from Elohim.

False humility... worship of angels... none of those things are commanded in the Law. And so, the dogmas of Colossians 2 would not be referring to Yahweh's commandments.

The "dogma" in Ephesians chapter 2, let's take a look at that.

 Ephesians 2:14 - For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,

15 - having abolished in His flesh the enmity, [that is], the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man [from] the two, [thus] making peace,

The word translated "enmity" here means "hatred." Hatred! It is enmity, hatred, that He abolished. Not one command in the Law has anything to do with hatred. It has everything to do with love. We talked about that. All the Law hangs from the two great commands to love Yahweh and to love one another.

And so, the ordinances that he is speaking of here that create enmity and hatred between Jew and Gentile would once again be ordinances, or "dogmas," of men.

And so, when you eliminate the commandments contained in dogmas-- and that is the ordinances of men-- you take away the hatred, you take away the enmity, between Jew and Gentile, and we become one new man in Messiah. Then we become at peace.

Yahweh's Law never commands or legislates enmity between anybody. Israel was supposed to love their enemies, to love the Gentile foreigner (in Leviticus, and so on).

And so, if you are looking for a full examination of Ephesians chapter 2, I would encourage you, take a look here: http://eliyah.com/transcripts/. And eliyah.com/transcripts/ is where you can find all the archives of previous teachings. So that is where you would find that study on Ephesians chapter 2.

And then, the pastor says this: "I, therefore, have liberty in Christ to eat bacon or catfish and enjoy it. In my faith, I believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, and it is taken out of the way, and I am free to enjoy that which He has provided. In my faith in His finished work, I do this."

My Reply: "For what reason would you not apply this to other commandments as well? We could say, 'I have liberty in Messiah to disobey other commands.'"

From what I have seen, there is no scriptural or logical basis for picking out certain commandments and choosing to ignore others on the basis of the Law being taken out of the way.

If I had, as he says here, "liberty in Christ" to eat pork and bacon and enjoy it, that means to disobey the Law. That would mean a part of the Law is null and void. That is what it would mean.

If that is true, then what do we do with Romans 3:31, which makes a very clear statement?

 Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

The word translated "establish" is from 2476, in the Greek, "histemi," which it says here in the definition, in the Strong's Lexicon, "a prolonged form of a primary "stao," meaning "to stand." We cause the Law "to stand" by our faith.

Strong's Lexicon: 2476 histemi his'-tay-mee a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively).

What he is saying is we have the liberty now to break the Law because part of the Law is void. It is null. It is no good. It is done away with. It is fulfilled. That is not what the Scriptures teach, though. The Scriptures say it is established. That means it stands, not that it is null and void.

Liberty in Messiah, as he has put it, does not mean license to break the Law, because sin is already, clearly, the transgression of the Law, as we have examined.

The real issue is that some of the Gentiles who entered the church in the early part of the second century did not want to give up their pork. They did not want to do the things that made them look Jewish. And so, they would find excuses to disobey the commandments which might offer this impression to their Gentile friends that they had become Jewish.

And so, they eliminated anything that made them look Jewish. And so, they rejected certain Jewish looking things that would make them look Jewish-- like keeping Sabbath days, dietary restrictions, festivals, calling on Hebrew names, and so on.

Other commandments, like loving your neighbor and meeting on "the venerable day of the sun," would not yield much persecution to the sun-worshiping friends. And that popularized Christianity through the compromise.

Marcion, an early second century heretic, had a certain amount of influence on the early church that remains to this day. And the various offshoots of the gnostics, who liked to spiritualize everything, had an influence on the early Gentile church theology as well.

And so, the ghosts of their theology remain in mainstream Christianity to this day. And they were not addressed by the reformers.

And he goes on to say: "However, if you do not have that faith, then for you it would be a sin to partake of pork, for Romans 14:23, 'He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'"

So, in other words, because he has great faith, he can break the Law, but because I don't have the faith, I feel I must keep the Law. Now isn't that backwards from what we just read? We do not make void the Law through faith. We establish it. And he uses Romans 14:23.

And so, my reply to him was: "Well, Peter is not weak in faith, obviously. 'In the name of Yahushua, rise up and walk,' he would say. And yet, he still had not eaten anything common or unclean in Acts chapter 10, maybe ten years or more after Messiah was resurrected.

"And so, was Peter, the main leader at that time, unaware that this was all nailed to the cross? And was he a man that was considered to be weak in the faith because he would not eat things common or unclean?" He was not weak in faith and the Law of Yahweh was not nailed to the cross.

See, Romans chapter 14, the issue there was that the Jews considered anything that was offered to an idol as being unclean. The Jewish Talmud teaches that. But the Law of Yahweh never taught that.

Now I do have a study on Romans 14. Once again: http://www.eliyah.com/romans14.html. And if you examine this study, you will find that the Law of Yahweh never taught food itself offered to an idol automatically rendered that food unclean.

In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul was pointing out that whether we eat meat sold in the market is a matter of faith regarding to the person.

In both texts he addresses those who are weak in faith, and the ones weak in faith should not be partaking of any meats because the meats that were offered to idols would have been sold in the marketplace and they were mindful of the idol when they ate it.

Just like it says here in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, verse 4:

 1Corinthians 8:4 - Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] no other Elohim but one.

5 - For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),

6 - yet for us [there is] one Elohim, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Master Yahushua Messiah, through whom [are] all things, and through whom we [live].

And so, he is saying in this that...

 1Corinthians 8:7 - However, [there is] not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat [it] as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

There is not in everyone that knowledge that there is one Elohim. They have a weakness in their faith.

 1Corinthians 8:8 - But food does not commend us to Elohim; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9 - But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

Those who are weak do not have that knowledge that an idol is nothing. And that is the same thing Romans 14 is talking about. If you compare them side by side, it becomes very clear. It is talking about the food offered to idols. It is not about eating pork.

That is why Paul says in Romans 14:

 Romans 14:1 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, [but] not to disputes over doubtful things.

2 - For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats [only] vegetables.

3 - Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for Elohim has received him.

So those who are strong in faith would know an idol is nothing and would not even think of the idol when eating various meats sold in the marketplace. Those who are weak in faith couldn't help but to think of the idol.

And so, those who were stronger in faith were instructed to not partake of the meats around them if it is going to cause the weaker brother to stumble because then they are no longer walking in love. And so, both 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 are speaking of the same thing.

And so, the true clean and unclean was not even really established in the Law of Moses (or the Law of Moshe). The true clean and unclean was known even to Noah. When Noah built the ark, he was instructed, in the book of Genesis, long before there was ever a Jewish man:

 Genesis 7:2 - "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that [are] unclean, a male and his female;

And so, this was not something that was established at Mount Sinai and at the time of the people of Israel. It was something that was established at creation. It was already known to Noah when he built the ark. And so, this is something that was long before there ever was a Jewish man.

And earlier, he had used that point to say, "Well, it's because that was before there was ever a Sinai covenant. Yes, we keep that command, but we keep it in a different way."

Well, Isaiah 66:15-17, in reference to the Messiah's return, says this:

 Isaiah 66:15 - For behold, YAHWEH will come with fire And with His chariots, like a whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.

A clear reference here to the final Judgment.

 Isaiah 66:16 - For by fire and by His sword YAHWEH will judge all flesh; And the slain of YAHWEH shall be many.

17 - "Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, [To go] to the gardens After an [idol] in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says YAHWEH.

"Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse." Talking about unclean animals. This is talking about a future event. It has not yet occurred.

Now I said to him, "This is not to condemn you or to condemn anyone because Yahweh is merciful if our heart is sincere. But I personally find these verses impossible for me to ignore."

If the eating of unclean animals is still considered to be an abomination by Him when He returns, what does that tell me about the popular interpretation that we can eat unclean animals now?

See, several times in the Scriptures Yahweh refers to unclean animals as being an abomination, and He says, also, that those who eat them make themselves abominable to Him-- Leviticus chapter 11 verse 11; Leviticus 11:43; Leviticus 20 verse 25.

Abominations are considered to be the worst of the worst of sins. Now didn't Yahweh say something about, "I, Yahweh, change not"? Yahushua, wasn't He the same "yesterday, today and forever"? I think we read that, don't we? And so, I don't believe that has changed. Not at all. Not one bit.

Then he says, in reference to my point last week about James 2 showing the synagogue is where they were meeting, he said: "The Christians often met in the synagogue, for that is where the Jews, as Jews, they were accustomed to meet.

"Paul, although he was a Christian, still attended the synagogue to preach, but the church met on the first day of the week also."

And I said, "Well, are you sure that they were not just obeying the Ten Commandments and doing what Yahweh told them to do, which is to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy?"

Sunday is never called the Sabbath anywhere in Scriptures. And he is saying that they met on the first day of the week also. I know what he is referring to. I mean, they would have met every day, actually.

If we look in Scripture, it says:

 Acts 2:46 - So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,

So they were pretty much meeting all the time. So if the first day of the week happened to be one of the days they were meeting-- no surprise. But that does not mean the Sabbath is done away with. That is just an attempt to justify the status quo. It is something they did every day.

Now when they were meeting on the first day of the week, we can find two scriptures that refer to that. But before we look at those scriptures, there is one more thing we have to look at and understand from a Hebraic perspective.

In Genesis chapter 1, verse 5, it says:

 Genesis 1:5 - Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

And so, the first day started with evening.

 Genesis 1:8 - And Elohim called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Evening and morning... the second day.

 Genesis 1:13 - So the evening and the morning were the third day.

 Genesis 1:19 - So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 Genesis 1:23 - So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 Genesis 1:31 - Then Elohim saw everything that He had made, and indeed [it was] very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And so, the days begin with evening. Also, Leviticus 23:32 says Sabbaths are to be celebrated from "evening to evening." This would mean the first day of the week would actually begin on what is called Saturday evening.

It also means that Sunday night's meetings sometimes, especially in the wintertime, are actually being observed on the second day of the week, because in Yahweh's eyes, the days end when the sun goes down and a new day begins.

So if we were to observe the Sabbath day just as Yahweh commanded in the Law, and it says here...

 Leviticus 23:3 - `Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day [is] a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work [on it]; it [is] the Sabbath of YAHWEH in all your dwellings.

... and we are told to keep this "holy convocation" (we are supposed to meet in a holy convocation) on the seventh day of the week... well, if we are gathered together on the seventh day of the week on a Sabbath afternoon and the sun goes down, what day of the week is it?

We are all still there. We are talking, meeting, fellowshipping, and the sun goes down. Now the first day of the week has begun. The Sabbath has ended. We are still gathered together and the sun goes down.

Now, sometimes, even here in modern times, brethren will meet about one or two o'clock in the afternoon on Sabbath. The sun goes down about five or six o'clock. We are still there. And then we do a little extra work or whatever to have a fellowship meal together that evening.

Well, they didn't have clocks back then, but the same thing I could quite easily see as having been done at that time as well. And so, these references here:

 Acts 20:7 - Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

 1Corinthians 16:2 - On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

It would make perfect sense if this is something they were doing after the Sabbath had ended. They were still there (Acts 20:7) and they are coming together to have a meal together. Breaking bread does not refer necessarily to partaking of the body and blood of Messiah. It is an idiom for gathering to have a meal together.

And laying something aside, doing financial things after the Sabbath has ended, would make sense also, because then you are not violating the Sabbath day by focusing on financial things.

And so, on the first day of the week, after sundown on the Sabbath (what the world calls Saturday night), it would seem to me, that is when these things were being done.

But they would have had their holy convocation on the Sabbath day, because there is no verse anywhere in Scripture commanding us to gather and observe the first day of the week as a Sabbath day. Nowhere.

We only have these two scriptures here which can easily be interpreted a number of ways. But I think one thing is very safe to assume. We should not interpret these two scriptures in such a way that would cause the fourth commandment to be blotted out, altered, sawed out or changed in any way.

Yahweh wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger to signify the eternity and finality of all ten of them. Throughout the New Testament, the seventh day of the week is still called Sabbath. Every reference to the word "Sabbath" in the New Testament-- every single time-- is referring to the seventh day of the week.

The first day of the week is never called Sabbath. It is simply called the first day of the week. And to me that speaks volumes and contradicts the notion that in anyone's mind the Sabbath had ever changed.

And then he says: "Jew or Gentile in the New Testament that have accepted Christ are not Jews or Gentile, but Christians. Although that word is not used."

I said, "Well, there is a reason why that word is not used. But what is the difference between calling myself Israel or telling you I am the seed of Abraham?"

Galatians 3:29 says:

 Galatians 3:29 - And if you [are] Messiah's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

"You are Abraham's seed if you are Messiah's. And so, if you tell me I'm not Jew, I'm not Israelite, I'm not Gentile, I'm not anything-- I am just a Christian-- where is that in the Bible? That is nowhere to be found."

There is no difference between me saying, "I am of Abraham's seed," and me saying, "I am Israel." And that is why we can be a partaker in that New Covenant that was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Because it is through the Messiah that we become Yisrael.

If we were Gentiles, Yahushua makes us an Israelite. We become Abraham's seed through Him. Even for Israelites, they have to become Torah-keeping Israelites, the Israelites that Yahweh intended for them to be from the beginning.

"Nevertheless," I said to him, "you say you are Christian. Doesn't the term Christian mean Christ-like or that the Messiah lives in us? Now if He was an Israelite and He lives in you, and it is no longer you who live, it is He who lives in you, then what does that make you? That makes you an Israelite.

"That is why it says in Ephesians chapter 2, that I shared in the previous letter, that you were in time past Gentiles, indicating you are not Gentiles anymore. You were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise. But now, you are brought near."

He never addressed that in his letter. He never addressed it. And so, I asked him again. I said, "If there are two camps, the Jews are in one camp and the Gentiles are in the other camp-- what about the twelve apostles?"

He said that only the Gentile believers in Messiah are part of the bride of Messiah. Does that mean the twelve apostles and Paul himself are not part of the bride of Messiah? I asked him that question and he never answered that.

And then he said in his next comments: "Peter recognized Paul's writings as scripture in 2 Peter 3:14-16. Peter probably wrote around the time of Paul's death. So much of the New Testament was written and accepted as scripture before Paul penned 2 Timothy.

"Israel and the church, or body of Christ, are two different divisions of people. Israel has promises and covenants which I do not. They are promised a land forever; I am not. So I have no right to call myself Israel. I am a part of the body of Christ, the church."

A very common notion. So he was replying to my point that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness. And I wrote to him. I said, "Well, Timothy, as a child, had known the holy Scriptures. And so, he was referring to the Scriptures he had known as a child."

Not to say the New Testament is not Scripture, but certainly the Old Testament is also Scripture. So it is important for us to examine the whole Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, and see if the things we believe are true and accurate or whether we are being influenced by traditions and the desire to conform to a modern church society.

When I first came to faith, I decided I want to let the Scriptures alone be my guide-- sola scriptura. And that was, and that is, my creed today. I don't want to follow any denomination. Never have. I want to follow the Scriptures without letting the fear of what others may say about me influence my interpretation.

I never limited myself to denominational restrictions nor did I want to put my trust in infallible men. I just want to follow Yahweh's Word for what it says. And from this perspective, I have found it to be unacceptable for me to disobey the clear commandment to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

In fact, every scripture I can find in the New Testament would support remembering the Sabbath, to keep it holy-- not forgetting the Sabbath and violating it. I don't believe Yahweh's Word contradicts itself, but that we should live by every word that proceeds out of Yahweh's mouth.

And if we came to be Christians, or Christ-like, or Messiah-like, then it is pretty clear to me, I ought to walk as He walked.

 1John 2:6 - He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

I know that He is Israel. I know He kept the Sabbath correctly on the correct day and in the correct way. I know He lived by every word that proceeds out of Yahweh's mouth. I know He did not sin. He did not transgress the Law. If He lives in me, I will do what He did. I am convinced. It is His life that needs to be made manifest in my life.

He wants to keep those commandments in me that He kept when He was on the earth, no tradition hindering that. He didn't like tradition too much. They often lead to transgression of the Law, don't they? Just like He said in Matthew 15:3 - "By your tradition, you set aside the commandments." The same thing is happening today.

Our heavenly Father also rested on the seventh day as an example for us. He blessed it. He sanctified it. He made it a holy day. We are told to remember that day, to keep that day holy. If we choose another day to remember and to keep holy, we are not doing our Father's will. We are just not, as I shared in the parable of the sheep last week.

There is no two ways about it. When we are disobeying the very clear commandment of the Scriptures and we choose to go our own way, then we are not following Messiah. But those who choose to ignore the day He made holy will have to answer for themselves.

I don't believe any of the scriptures which were provided in this pastor's response would justify changing the words He wrote in stone with His own hand.

It is no longer we who live. And if the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever, the Sabbath He kept yesterday is the Sabbath He wants to keep today. And it is the same Sabbath we will all keep forever.

And so, I wrote to him: "Thank you for your reply and for your consideration. I will look forward to your response. Hopefully, one in favor of truly remembering the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Last I checked, the Ten Commandments really weren't multiple choice. I don't want to bring Him the wool from a sheep He never asked me to shear to begin with."

I left it at that and I signed my name. And to this day... I think it has been five years or more... he has never replied. Maybe he is contemplating. Maybe he is... I don't know what he is doing. I didn't get an email reply.

But this is a classic example of Christian theology that we often will face today that from what I can gather looking at all the scriptures really has no basis in truth according to the Word.

But we need to know how to answer this. We need to answer it for ourselves first and foremost.

And once we can answer it for ourselves through diligent research and study, then we can really begin to answer others who come to us with the same points, and say, "Do you know what? I have studied that out. I understand your point. I understand where you are coming from."

But the things that I have shared here in this broadcast are addressing these points in such a way I have never found anyone capable or able to really refute. So I encourage you to take a look at these. If you find something I have said to be refuted by the Scriptures, I am open-minded.

And if I find something that refutes my understanding here, I will change. I will. It is OK. But, so far, everything I see from Genesis to Revelation is, over and over again: We are called to keep His Law, and if we choose to not keep His Law, then we are in sin.

And that is not the condition I want to be in when I meet my Savior, because I love Him and I want to be just like Him. How about you?

Thank you, my brothers and sisters. May Yahweh guide us to all truth. May Yahweh bless you, and may Yahweh have mercy on us all.

Home | E-mail list | Request printed copy of this page | Search | |