08/03/2013 Sabbath Broadcast Transcript

"Response to Common Objections about the Law - Part 1""

EliYah's message:

How many of you are fairly new to this walk and you are so excited, or maybe at one time you were new (of course, most of us were) and you were so excited, and you learned about this and you went back to your church and you were sure that everybody else was going to be just as excited as you were to hear what you had found in the Scriptures?

And then you found out... well... hmmm... cold shoulder, people not being enthusiastic. They are saying, "Oh, well, you are getting too much into the Law" and "Your nose is in the Old Testament too long."

People started squirming in their chairs. You get a visit from the pastor. And, finally, you realize, "Wait a minute. I am alone. Nobody, or almost nobody, is seeing what I am seeing here. I don't get it. How could they not see it?"

And then the pastor gets out his Bible and he points you to these verses, and says, "See this here? This can't be true. This here and that here and the other." And you look at the verses, and you go, "Well... hmmm... well... but then what about these other verses? And so, how do they come together? I am confused."

Now some people at that point may just go, "I'll just go back to my old worn comfortable shoes I was wearing before. I was doing okay then, so I'll set that down on the shelf for a while or just pretend like it didn't exist."

Other people would be like, "Well, what is this? Why do these verses over here appear to be saying something a little bit different?" You may have found that there were some scripture verses that they were able to bring up that you weren't sure how to address and how that lined up with the things that you had been learning from the scriptures before.

And so, what we want to go over today is some of the common objections that people at the churches (the Sunday observing churches) might be bringing to your attention, and maybe a pastor might be trying to bring to your attention, to demonstrate in their mind that the status quo is the correct path.

And what we are going to do is we are going to go over a letter, actually, that I had received from a pastor. Actually, I had sent a study I had written, regarding the fact that the Law of Yahweh is not just for the Jews, and this person I had sent it to sent it to their pastor.

And the pastor went over the study and then wrote down some notes and sent me a letter. And in this letter he brings up some of the more common objections to suggest that we don't need to observe Yahweh's Law, we don't need to keep the Sabbath day, and so on.

And so, today's study title is called: "Response to Common Objections about the Law." And we see the pastor there on the left. He has the Bible held high. He is pointing at the congregation. Kind of an iconic picture there of an everyday-- not everyday, but a lot of Baptists and some preachers on how their style is.

And then on the right we have people going over those scriptures he is trying to bring out and comparing notes. And so, we are going to hear the words of a pastor and we are going to be like Bereans, and we are going to see if these things are so.

Most of you should know, I think, the passage in the books of Acts about the people of Berea who were more noble than those of Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether or not these things were so. And so, that is what we want to do.

We want to be fair-minded. And perhaps the pastor felt he is being a Berean as well because he is comparing what I am saying according to his understanding of the Scriptures.

But we want to do this, don't we? We want to be a people who research and not just take things at first glance. We want to research.

 Acts 17:11 - These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily [to find out] whether these things were so.

Now the Scriptures that the people had in Acts chapter 17, it never says they searched the book of Romans, it never says they searched the book of Galatians daily to find out whether these things were so.

No, Paul was coming to them (and Silas) there in Berea. And they were going into a synagogue and I am pretty sure, when you look at the context here, in the synagogue there was no book of Romans sitting there as one of the scrolls.

 Acts 17:10 - Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.

And so, what were they comparing Paul's statements to? The Torah, the Writings and the Prophets, what is commonly called the "Old Testament."

And so, what should we be doing? Well, since we regard the books of Romans and Galatians, and other things, to be Scripture as well, we should go to those as well. And I think we will find that they line up perfectly with what is called the Old Testament.

So, anyway, we want to be equipped, don't we? We want to be able to give an answer for the reason why we have this understanding and not just believe what we believe because we like it personally or not turn something away because we dislike it personally.

We want to be a people who just say, "Okay, Yahweh, Your will. Whatever it is You say that You want me to do, that is what I want to do even if I don't particularly care for it."

Abraham probably didn't particularly care for having to take his son and offer him as a burnt offering on the altar, but he was willing to do it.

Yahushua, actually, He sweat blood, didn't He? He says, "Let this cup pass from Me somehow." But He was willing to do it even if He didn't particularly want to. He was willing to submit, and say, "Not My will, but Your will be done." And so, let's be honest with the text, and try to just say, "Whatever Yahweh's Word says is what it says."

So, anyway, when he wrote me a letter, the first thing he said was this: "First he needs to study the book of Galatians which Paul emphasis's to the church that Christ has freed us from the bondage of the law and given us liberty in Jesus Christ and the gospel."

"He needs to study the book of Galatians." So, so common. "You need to study this book of Galatians. See, you need to look at that."

Well, his idea here is that the Law is bondage. That is his thought. The Law is bondage and Messiah has freed us from this bondage of the Law. That is what the pastor's viewpoint is, that the Law brings us into bondage. Therefore, if we choose to obey the Law, that would mean we are back under bondage again.

Well, my reply back to him was that I had studied the book of Galatians and I agree we are not in bondage because Messiah set us free, but that the Law wasn't like this necessary evil as some might portray it. But it is holy, it is just, and it is good.

And the scripture that would demonstrate that the Law is holy (I am going to do a little ad-libbing today if you don't mind), in Romans chapter 7, it says here:

 Romans 7:12 - Therefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Why then would we suggest that the Law is bondage? What is going on here? Is the Law bondage? Does the Law bring us under bondage? Does observing the commandments cause us to be in some kind of slavery? No. The problem is that the Law, while it is holy and just and good, we have not been holy. We have not been just. And we have not been good.

And because we have not been holy, just and good, and the Law tells us what holiness is, what justice is and what goodness is-- it is our sin against that Law that brings us into bondage, not the Law. The Law is not what is causing us to be bound. It is our transgression of this Law that causes us to be bound.

That is what caused the whole problem. That is what brought about the need for Messiah. And so, the Law is not bondage. Sin is bondage. Transgression of the Law is bondage.

The Law demonstrates that we have not obeyed our Father. We have not walked in righteousness and goodness and holiness. Yes, the Messiah has made us free from our transgressions of the Law, but our freedom is not a license to willfully break that Law, to sin all that we want to and then still think we are walking in freedom.

The study I shared with him was a study called "Is the Law Jewish?" And the main point in that study, which I shared, was to demonstrate that some of the commandments people assume are only for the Jewish people are actually for everyone-- including the Sabbath day.

And so, the question for all of us now-- and I think most of us, even most Christian pastors, would acknowledge, "Okay, yes, we should be obedient"-- the real question is: What is it that we are supposed to be obedient to?

The pastors out there typically will say, "Well, we have to be obedient," but they don't mean be obedient to Yahweh's Law. They mean be obedient to the things written in the New Testament.

All right, well, if you have that as your foundation, you believe that we should be obedient to the things written in the New Testament... well... the New Testament says:

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

Now it can't get any plainer than this in my mind. Some translations will have "lawlessness" here (I might say "torahlessness"), but the Greek word is "anomia," and it simply means "violation of the Law."

Now I happen to agree, and I wrote this to the pastor, I agree with John. He said, "Sin is the transgression of the Law." So if I choose to transgress the Law-- if the Law tells me to do something and I choose to disobey it-- then what I am doing is, I am sinning.

John never said, "Sin is the transgression of the Law only if you are Jewish." He just says sin is the transgression of the Law.

And Paul taught the same thing in Romans chapter 3, verse 20. He said:

 Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

It is the Law that tells us and gives us information on what sin is.

Now the reason why he is saying, "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight," what he is saying is "the deeds of the law..." What are the deeds of the Law? The deeds of the Law is to teach us sin, because "by the law is the knowledge of sin."

The work of the Law is to teach us what sin is. And, therefore, something that simply teaches us what sin is cannot cause us to be justified when we break it. In fact, it causes us to be condemned. Not because we kept it, but because we have broken it.

 Romans 7:7 - What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

Here we go again. The same thing 1 John was saying. The same thing Paul was saying. "I would not have known sin except through the Law." The Law tells us the difference between sin and righteousness, between unrighteousness and evil and righteousness.

"For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.' " Now a lot of people at this point will go, "Oh, he is just talking about the Ten Commandments." All right, well, if he is talking about the Ten Commandments, what about the fourth commandment, the Sabbath day? "Oh, well, not that one."

You can't have it both ways. It is going to be one or the other.

So I wrote, and I said, "So we have these scriptures which clearly demonstrate sin is the transgression of the Law. Romans 3:20 says, 'By the law is the knowledge of sin.' Romans 7:7 says, 'I would not have known sin except through the law.' "

And so, if somebody wants to disobey-- let's just say one of the Ten Commandments, which are clearly a part of the Law-- it is pretty obvious what we are doing is, we are sinning. It is the very definition of sin.

The command to keep Sabbath, then, when it says, "Rest on the seventh day of the week," and we choose to rest on a different day of the week or we choose not to rest at all, then what we are doing is, we are sinning.

Because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin," "I would not have known sin except through the Law," and "sin is the transgression of the Law." Very plain. Very simple.

Now at the time I had a lot of sheep, and I said, "I am a shepherd. I live on a farm here in southern Missouri. Suppose I had seven wool sheep in my flock, and I told my son, 'Go out in the field, sheer the seventh sheep, the one we call Missy.

" 'Sheer her wool (the seventh sheep that has been born on this farm) and bring her wool back to me because I have a special purpose for the wool.' And he goes up the hill and he looks at the seventh sheep and there was one he liked better than the seventh one.

"And he picked out the first sheep and he sheered the first sheep. And he brought me back the wool." And I asked the pastor this, I said, "So my question to you is: If my son had done this, did he do my will? Was he obedient to my command? Clearly not. He disobeyed my commandment."

Now our heavenly Father rested on the seventh day as an example for us. The Messiah followed His example, also, later on. During the book of Genesis, the creation account, He blessed the seventh day. He sanctified it at creation. He made that day a holy day. He created the concept of a seven day week.

We are told to remember that day and to keep it holy. Now if we go and we choose some other day and we decide to keep that day holy, are we doing our Father's will? Certainly my son, if he had gone up and gotten the wrong wool, he would not have done what I told him to do. He would have done the act, but not on the sheep that I had asked him to do it.

The same is true of our heavenly Father. Okay, you are going through the act of observing His Sabbath, but not at the time that He appointed, not on the day which He sanctified. And so, if we choose to disobey that command, what are we doing? We are sinning.

Now back to our pastor's comments here. He said, "Notice Galatians 2:16. We are justified by faith in Christ not by works of the law." That is what he says.

Well, he is correct. And I wrote him back. I said, "Very true. We are not justified by the works of the Law. The Law cannot justify us. It can only condemn us."

"To be justified" means "to be declared righteous." It means "declared just." The Law does not declare us righteous. The Law only condemns us because not one of us has kept the Law. And so, yes, only through Messiah can we be justified, not by our own works.

That's true. He is right about that. But, then what?

 Romans 6:1 - What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Should we continue in what? Transgression of the Law. Can we just go on in our sins and continue doing what we were doing before and expect that grace will continue to be there? He says...

 Romans 6:2 - Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

How could it be possible that we, who died to sin, would live any longer in it? You cannot die to sin and live in it at the same time. And so, the simple answer is, "Okay, the Law does not justify us. Does that mean we can break it now? Does that mean we can transgress it now?"

And it is one of the many times Paul says, "Certainly not!" or "Elohim forbid!" He says this several times and in several different contexts throughout his letters.

For instance, in the verse we looked at earlier, in Romans chapter 7 and verse 12, if we read the context of that particular verse, it says:

 Romans 7:12 - Therefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

13 - Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

What is good is the Law. Is the Law death? Is the Law dead? And here he goes, once again, "Certainly not!" It is our transgressions of the Law that is producing death, not the Law itself. It is using the commandment-- "so sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful."

Yes, the commandment is there demonstrating our sin. It is an instrument through which our sin is revealed. But the Law is not sin. The Law is not dead. The Law is holy, just and good.

Another context:

 Galatians 2:17 - "But if, while we seek to be justified by Messiah, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] Messiah therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

Certainly not! And he says:

 Galatians 2:18 - "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

In other words, if I continue to break the Law after having been justified by Messiah, I rebuild again the things which I destroyed. The things you destroyed was sin. Now you are right back at being a transgressor again.

So whenever Paul says, "Certainly not!" or, in some translations, "Elohim forbid!" look out for those statements, because he is often relating it to, "Of course, we are supposed to be obedient to the Law. Of course, the Law is not dead."

WE are dead. Through Messiah, we died to the Law. That does not mean the Law is dead to us. It is living, powerful, sharper than a two edge sword. And so, I said, "The standard of righteousness, therefore, does not change when we accept the Messiah. His standard remains forever."

Now our standing with Yahweh changes when we accept Messiah. And so, is it right to say everyone else in the world, they are expected to turn away from lawbreaking? They are expected to turn away from sin. They are expected to turn away from transgression of the Law.

And they will be condemned for their failure to keep that Law if they even fail in one point. But those of us in Messiah, we are free to just purposely disobey the Law all day long and live however we want to live? No. Yahweh Forbid! Certainly not!

And so, his next point: "Chapter 3, he tells us that we receive the Spirit, not by the works of the Law, but by faith. We are not made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit."

He is right. We actually agree. We receive the Spirit not by works of the Law. The Law is not giving us the Spirit. It is the faith that we have in Messiah Yahushua giving us the Spirit.

We are not going to be made perfect by the flesh. We are going to be made perfect by the Spirit. That is true. The Law doesn't make us perfect. It only shows us what perfection is. It is the Spirit of Yahweh that leads us and guides us toward obedience to the Law, and therefore, a more perfect walk.

It is the Spirit of Yahweh that is filling us with Messiah, cleansing us from all sin. And so, it is by the Spirit we are made perfect. He is correct.

He is correct. And so, I wrote back to him, and I said, "Well, we receive the Spirit by faith in Messiah, which justifies us, not by our works. Yep, our works will always fall short of HIs glory. Our imperfect flesh is incapable of perfecting us. But does that mean that we are free now to willfully sin and transgress the Law?"

The clear answer here, Romans chapter 6: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" The clear answer is: "Certainly not!"

And so, it is a moot point, really, to bring these points up, simply because-- we agree. I mean, these statements do not cancel Yahweh's desire for us to keep the Law. It simply points out that we cannot be perfected by the Law. We can't be perfected by it because the Law never made anyone perfect. It only showed men what perfection is.

And he goes on to say: "Galatians 3:24 tells us that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but when faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. He needs to study the whole book of Galatians."

He is correct that we are not under a schoolmaster. What is the schoolmaster? The schoolmaster is what? The Law, right? That is the schoolmaster being pointed out in Galatians 3:24. We are not under it. When faith came, we were no longer under a schoolmaster. He is correct. We are not under the Law. It is not confining us under sin.

If we were under the Law, we would be under its condemnation because we broke it. Instead, we are not under the Law, we are under grace.

So he is actually correct. But it is his conclusion as a result of these statements that are problematic. Because, yes, we are not under the Law. That is true. We need to come to an understanding, though, that we are not above the Law, either.

And so, we should not continue to willfully sin, willfully transgress, just so that grace may abound. As Paul said in Romans 6:15:

 Romans 6:15 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Here he goes again. He likes to say that, doesn't he?

He is saying here, just because you are not under the schoolmaster, just because you are not under the Law, that doesn't cancel the requirement or the desire that Yahweh has that we would cease from sin.

And so, what he is saying is, "Should we sin?" What is sin? "Sin is the transgression of the law." Right? We read that. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." "I would not have known sin except through the law."

Shall we sin because we are not under the Law, but under grace? Should we transgress the Law simply because we are not under it? Certainly not!

 Romans 6:16 - Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?

In other words, he is saying, if we intentionally say, "Well, I can sin, I can transgress the Law, because I am under grace," you become a slave who is a sinner headed for destruction.

That is the teaching going out, that because we are under grace, if we take this attitude we can sin, we can transgress the Law, we can live how we want to live, do the things that we want to do-- if we think we can do that-- then we become a slave to sin.

We want to be slaves to righteousness. Correct? We want to be ones who are obedient. Obedient to what? The Law! Because sin is the transgression of the Law. We want to be obedient to the Law.

We do not want to be ones who, even though we are not under the Law, have this attitude of, "Oh, well, we can continue to transgress it all we want to because, hey, we are under grace now. If the Law says something, I can disobey it because, hey, the Bible says I am not under it anymore. I am not under the schoolmaster anymore."

He is addressing that very point here yet again in the book of Romans.

So, next, he decides he is going to pull out Colossians. And, undoubtedly, they will bring this up. According to the pastor: "Colossians 2:14 tells us He took the law and the ordinances out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

"Verse 16, 'We are not to be judged in meat or drink or in respect to any holy days, or new moons, or sabbath. It's a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.'"

In other words, what he is saying here is, it is... IT IS... a shadow of things to come. That is his point. Right? So these things-- Holy Days, New Moons, Sabbath-- they are presently, today, a shadow of things to come.

So I replied back. I said, "Well, up to this point, I have really agreed with what you have written for the most part, but on this point, I have to differ. If He took the Law out of the way, then sin is no longer transgression of the Law. Sin would be defined as something else. It would not be transgression of the Law certainly."

So if He took the Law out of the way, why would it say anywhere in the New Testament that the Law defines what sin is or when we transgress the Law we are sinning if He took those things out? So what really is the meaning here of Colossians chapter 2?

 Colossians 2:13 - And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

14 - having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The cross or the stake. I think we would all agree it was Messiah, really, who was nailed to the tree, right? Not some list of commands? What was actually nailed?

What we have to remember, first of all, in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, verse 21, it says:

 2Corinthians 5:21 - For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of Elohim in Him.

So Messiah became sin for us, right? So that we might become righteous. And so, what happened to the Messiah when He was nailed on the tree was a sinner was nailed on the tree, because He became sin for us.

Now let's look at the full context here of Colossians chapter 2. If sin is nailed to the tree... let's read the context. It says in verse 8:

 Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Messiah.

And so, two things are being contrasted here. We have two things contrasted. We have Messiah on one hand and then we have other things-- philosophy, empty deceit, tradition and things that are of the world. Those are all on the other side. He is contrasting two different things.

What are these things specifically? If you look at the context here of Colossians 2, it says, "You, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements..."

Now in this particular passage, "handwriting of requirements," this word translated "requirements," in the Greek, is the Greek word "dogma." It refers to decrees of men... "that was against us, which was contrary to us. He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake."

Now if it was the false doctrines, the false philosophies, the deceptive things that we looked at earlier, if that was what was nailed to the tree, wouldn't that make more sense? That philosophy, tradition, deception, things that are of the world-- that would have been nailed to the tree, not Yahweh's Law? I think it would make a whole lot more sense.

Now there is one instance where this word "dogma" is referring to something that the Apostles had written and that was the council in Acts 15. It is an ordinance of man however.

The ordinances of man can be biblical or they can be unbiblical. He is referring here to the ones that are unbiblical. That is what He had to wipe out. That is what was against us. That is what was contrary to us.

Yahweh didn't have to take away the Law so that we could be righteous. He took away our sin so that we could be righteous. He didn't take out His standard so that we could somehow meet His standard. Otherwise, He would have no standard.

No, what He did was He took our sin out of the way, nailed it to the tree, because Messiah became sin for us. Does that make more sense to you? It makes a whole lot more sense to me.

So what are these ordinances of men? If you continue to read, actually, in Colossians (now I don't have time to go over the whole chapter here), but we see some here in Colossians 2:18, and I am going to go ahead and put these up here. He says:

 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,

He is talking about things that are, you know... worship of angels. Nowhere in the Law does it say, "Let us engage in worship of angels or false humility." These kinds of ordinances are the kinds of things that would have been taken out of the way, nailed to the tree.

There were some ascetic practices, also. Asceticism is this belief that you cannot have any pleasure at all. You can't eat anything that tastes good. You can't feel anything that is soft and pleasant. And that is why he goes on to say, "Do not touch."

Here are some of the other dogmas. I will post these up here, too.

 Colossians 2:20 - Therefore, if you died with Messiah from the basic principles of the world, why, as [though] living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations --

And the Greek word here, again, is "dogma."

 Colossians 2:21 - "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"

22 - which all concern things which perish with the using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

He is not talking about Yahweh's commandments. He is talking about dogmas. The Greeks, who were involved in asceticism, believed that you can't touch soft things, you can't taste good things. "Don't handle these things over here." And so, their belief was based on the philosophy, the vain deceit, the things that were of the world.

Now what about Colossians 2:16 and 17? He says:

 Colossians 2:16 - So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

17 - which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Messiah (Lit. "body of Messiah").

What is he talking about here? Well, first I want to point out here, it says that "the Holy Days, the New Moons, the Sabbath Days," and so on... "or in meat (keeping clean and unclean), or in drink," these are -- they ARE-- a shadow of things to come. The Holy Days, New Moons, Sabbath Days, and so on, ARE a shadow of things to come.

Now that is important to note, because look at what the pastor had written us. He had said: "It is a shadow of things to come." And there is a difference. He says "it is." "It's." "It's a shadow of things to come." There is a difference.

And the reason why it is a difference is because if I said to you, "These things presently ARE a shadow of things to come," then what that means is, they are still here.

If I said, "These things WERE a shadow of things to come," that would be saying, "Well, they were things that were in the past. They are not here anymore because they have been done away with. At one time they were this shadow of Messiah, this shadow of things to come, this shadow of future events, and today we don't have it anymore."

But, no. What is he saying? "These things are-- Sabbath Days, New Moons, meat, drink, Holy Days, and so on-- they are, presently, today, a shadow of things to come. A very big difference.

Another thing I want you to notice here is it says "but the body is of Messiah." Notice here, this word "is" is in italics in the King James Version. Italics means it was added by translators. For one reason or another they felt that word needed to be added.

If we take this word "is" out of the text, because it is not in the Greek, something begins to make sense. It says: "Let no one judge you in meat... drink... holyday... new moon... sabbath days... which are a shadow of things to come [let no one judge you of these things, which are a shadow], but the body of Messiah."

Do not let anyone judge you except the body of Messiah. Only the body of Messiah is qualified to judge these matters-- not pagans, not philosophers, not those involved in vain deceit. Only the body of Messiah is qualified. And that is why Paul says:

 1Corinthians 5:11 - But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person.

12 - For what [have] I [to do] with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?

We are permitted to judge one another. It is not wrong. It is acceptable for us to make judgments. If we were not allowed to make judgments, we would be incapable of determining when a brother is even sinning.

And so, Paul would have to make a judgment, "Well, this person is sexually immoral. This person is covetous. This person is an idolater. This person is a reviler. This person is a drunkard. This person is an extortioner. And, therefore, you cannot keep company with them."

You have to judge your brothers if they are being named one. You have to be named a brother. But those on the outside Yahweh judges.

 1Corinthians 5:13 - But those who are outside Elohim judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

He is quoting the Law here. The principle is: get rid of the evil person. Remove them from the body of Messiah, from the congregation.

And so, Paul is not saying you are free to disobey these commands. He is saying don't let anyone judge you for having kept them. No outsider should come in and judge you because you keep the Sabbath, you keep the Holy Days, you keep these other commands.

I believe I am interpreting this correctly because if you read the context and continue to read...

 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.

That is the Head of the body. He is contrasting, once again, the things that are of Messiah over here and the things that are of the world over here. The things that are of Messiah are Feasts. Don't the festivals talk about Messiah? And Sabbath? Isn't Messiah pictured in Sabbath?

And on the other side we have worship of angels. That is not anything holy. And false humility. So if we want to hold fast to the Head, we need to hold fast to the Messiah. We need to hold fast to the Word. And He is the Word made flesh which dwelt among us.

He is comparing the body of Messiah, which we just read about in the former verse. This is the body of Messiah right here (Col. 2:17). Messiah is all about Feast Days and Sabbath Days, and so on, believe it or not.

And so, it is pretty clear to me the two things he is contrasting: philosophies and vain deceit; and the things that have to do with the Messiah. The comparison: the dogmas of men versus the words of the Messiah, the words of Yahweh, His judgments.

So hold fast to the principles and the judgments of the body of Messiah rather than getting caught up in the commandments and doctrines and traditions of men. And so, those are the things that we need to be aware of.

And we continue to read:

 Colossians 2:20 - Therefore, if you died with Messiah from the basic principles of the world, why, as [though] living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations --

Dogmas. "Dogmatizo," here: "being subject to regulations."

 Colossians 2:21 - "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"

22 - which all concern things which perish with the using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

He is not talking about the commandments that Yahweh authored. He is talking about commandments that man has authored. So he is not talking about clean and unclean. He is talking about asceticism, which was rampant-- philosophies, vain deceit, traditions of men.

 Colossians 2:23 - These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, [false] humility, and neglect of the body, [but are] of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Asceticism, once more.

 Colossians 3:1 - If then you were raised with Messiah, seek those things which are above, where Messiah is, sitting at the right hand of Elohim.

2 - Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.

So he continues to contrast the two: the things of man versus the things of Messiah. You cannot say that the festivals are things of men. They picture the Messiah.

Passover pictures the Messiah. Pentecost pictures the Messiah. The upcoming Feast of Trumpets is a picture of Messiah's return at the last trump.

But these philosophies were a real stumbling block for Gentiles who needed to be reeducated and taught heavenly things.

I mean, the Law is not an earthly thing. The Law is not a fleshly thing. Paul said in Romans 7:14:

 Romans 7:14 - For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

We are carnal apart from Messiah, but the Law is spiritual. And if the Law is spiritual, we read in Romans 8:5:

 Romans 8:5 - For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those [who live] according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Contrasting, once again, the things of the Spirit versus the things of the flesh.

 Romans 8:6 - For to be carnally minded [is] death, but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.

7 - Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against Elohim; for it is not subject to the law of Elohim, nor indeed can be.

The carnal mind is hatred against Elohim. Why is it hatred against Elohim? For it is not subject to the Law of Elohim, nor indeed can be.

And so, if we refuse to be subject to the Law of Elohim, it is very clear. It is only about death. Whereas if we are subject to the Law of Elohim, we are spiritually minded. We become inheritors of life and peace.

It is only the carnal mind that is turning away and refusing to be subject to the Law of Elohim. "To be subject to" means "to be obedient to," "to obey."

And so, if we turn to spiritual things and we have a spiritual mind, we will be subject to the Law, right? That is what it says.

So then, he says this: "The keeping of the law gives us righteousness, but Christ is our righteousness. 2 Corinthians 5:21, James 2:10 tells us whoever keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point, he is guilty of all.

"Part of the law, under Moses, tells us we cannot wear clothing if it is two different materials, such as polyester and cotton. Has he ever worn such clothing?" Talking about me, because he is writing back to the person who handed him my study.

Well, this is the second thing that pastors or people that have a different viewpoint will try to bring up. "Messiah is our righteousness, so therefore, we can break the Law now." But we already addressed that point, right?

Well, the second thing they like to bring up is "whoever keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all." In other words, "You cannot offend in even one point," they will tell you. "You can't even break a single command now because you have decided to keep the Law. You have to keep the WHOLE thing or you are guilty."

Now wait a minute. I am not under the Law. But simply because I am not under the Law does not mean I am free to disobey it. So if I seek to be obedient to the Law by observing Sabbath, by doing other things that are not commonly observed today, if I seek to be obedient to the Law, how is it that I am guilty?

I am not guilty because I have Messiah where I might fail.

So he is pointing out here I am guilty of all, I am guilty of everything, because I am trying to keep it. Now does that really make any sense? No. What James is saying is even if we broke a single command, we would still be transgressors and still in need of the Messiah.

But if we have Messiah and we have received Messiah and yet we repent-- that means we turn away from law breaking-- we want to be spiritually minded, we want to be subject to the Law. We don't want to transgress the Law and thereby make ourselves sinners headed for death and destruction.

We want to be righteous men and women through Messiah cleansing us from all unrighteousness and through learning the way of righteousness by seeking obedience to Yahweh's Law.

And he brings up this point here: "Part of the law, under Moses, tells us we cannot wear clothing if it is two different materials, such as polyester and cotton. Has he ever worn such clothing?"

He is trying to pick out a part of the Law he feels is silly. A very common technique. They find something ridiculous and they bring up these, and say, "Ah, well, if you are really trying to keep the Law, then you have to keep this one."

So I replied back. I said, "Well, this commandment appears to be a prohibition of mixing animal and plant fibers together. I don't know if I have ever worn cotton and wool in the same garment, but I don't anymore, and I do try to make my clothing to be one-hundred percent." I just left it at that.

They try to point out something that most people don't do, and say, "Well, you have to keep that one, too." And if you don't keep that one, too, then they discredit you. "Oh, you say you keep the Law, but then you don't really." That is the common technique done today.

Because a lot of people will say, "Well, yeah, I am not going to go to that length. I am not going to go through my whole wardrobe and start taking anything out that is mixed fibers, that is polyester and cotton, and have to do all that. Why, that would be very hard. So, maybe the Law, we shouldn't do it."

That is the kind of thinking that is often behind that. But I left it at that. I didn't go any further. And it is really just best not to in this particular instance.

So then he says: "The law tells us we are not to eat of unclean animals, such as catfish, pigs, such as chickens, and yet Peter is told in Acts 10, when he sees all manner of unclean beasts, he is commanded to rise, kill and eat.

"Peter says, 'Not so, Lord, I've never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' How could God command Peter to eat something that's unlawful for Him to eat, if the law had not been fulfilled in Christ?"

A good question. A fair question. And I wrote back. I said, "Well, first of all, chickens are not unclean, but catfish and pigs are definitely unclean." And Peter was given a vision here that was also a parable. The great sheet came down. And in Acts 10:17, after he had seen this vision, it says here:

Acts 10:17a - "Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant..."

He wondered: "What does this mean?" And then later, in Acts 10:28, this is what he found out what the vision meant. He said, "But Elohim has shown me that I can eat all the pork and catfish that I want."

No, that is not what it says, is it? It says:

Acts 10:28 - "... But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

In other words, he was supposed to go to the Gentiles. That was the point of the vision-- to show him, "You need to go to the nations," like Yahushua commanded in Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19a - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations..."

And so, what were they doing? They were afraid to go to the Gentiles. It was not appropriate in those days for Jews to have dealings with Gentiles.

And so, if you want a more in depth study on that, I would encourage you to read these two links: http://www.EliYah.com/clean.html. And recently, in the last several months, we went over a lot of these scriptures in the transcripts in the archives: http://www.eliyah.com/transcripts/.

But we are not going to go into depth this time. We have already done that.

So then he goes on, and he says: "The law is true for us, but it does not teach us that obedience brings righteousness, but it teaches us that man cannot live up to God's standards, and we need a Savior. You cannot keep the law; therefore, by trying to keep the law, you cannot walk in truth."

That is interesting. What I said was, "Well, I agree our own efforts to produce salvation in ourselves are futile. We need a Savior. The question is, once we receive the Savior, are we supposed to willfully continue in sin (transgressing the Law) so that grace may abound? Well, both Paul and I say, 'No.'

"I think you would agree, but the question really is: What is sin? That is the real question. What is sin? Scriptures give me a clear answer what sin is. It is transgression of the Law. So I cannot continue to sin, I cannot continue to transgress the Law, so that grace may abound. That is not a good attitude."

And he says: "Yes, the law is still there for us to learn from; certainly, much there is to be obeyed. 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' along with many other laws, but in themselves, they do not bring us righteousness. The new commandment is to love. [The new commandment is to love?] Adultery is not of love; therefore, adultery is sin."

And I wrote back, "This is another common misconception. The Law of Yahweh is not adequate, so Yahushua had to come along and say everything written in the Law is about love, or the Law of Yahweh somehow never told us to love. Some people think that. That is not true.

"Actually the commandment to love is not a new commandment. It is not a new commandment at all. It is a very old commandment. All you have to do is read Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5, 'Love Yahweh with all your heart, soul and strength,' and Leviticus 19, verse 18, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

In fact, they were quoted here in Matthew chapter 22, coming right from the Law, those two verses.

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

 Leviticus 19:18 - `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.

Love Yahweh, love your neighbor, coming right out of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

And so, Yahushua the Messiah was asked the question:

 Matthew 22:36 - "Teacher, which [is] the great commandment in the law?"

37 - Yahushua said to him, "`You shall love YAHWEH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'

This commandment is in the Law. It is not a new commandment to love. In fact, this is the first and great commandment-- to love Yahweh.

 Matthew 22:38 - "This is [the] first and great commandment.

39 - "And [the] second [is] like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

That is Leviticus 19:18. So, love Yahweh and love your neighbor. He says:

 Matthew 22:40 - "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

On these two commandments, which come from the Law, hang ALL the Law and the Prophets. And so, everything written in the Law and the Prophets have to do with love. EVERYTHING. Because everything hangs off those two commands.

So I wrote him. I said, "Yahushua did teach that the very essence of the Law and Prophets is to love. Every commandment therein has to do with Yahweh's desire for us to love Him and love one another."

Now the picture I see in this verse is this picture of a wood carving of the two great commands at the top that says, "Love Yahweh" and "Love your neighbor." And underneath are these chains and the Law and the Prophets are hanging off these two great commands at the top.

Now are we supposed to take some bolt cutters and snip the Law and the Prophets off the two commandments from which they hang? Certainly not! They are still hanging there. The idea that we can cut the Law and the Prophets off the two commandments from which they hang is a false doctrine of modern Christianity.

Every commandment in the Law has to do with love including the Sabbath commandment. Yahweh made a day holy. He told us to remember that day, to keep it holy. We cannot make another day holy no matter how hard we try. It is not very loving toward Him to forget and ignore that day when He told us to remember it.

Profaning the things which He made holy is not love. If your father gave you a pure white garment, and he said, "Son, Daughter, keep this garment white and pure. Do not let it touch the ground. Keep it in a safe place. It has been handed down from generation to generation," and you took it, and you said, "Yes, Father. I will do what you say."

And you go and take the garment and you throw it on the ground and you stomp all over it. Would that be love? No, it would not be love.

Yahweh gave us a sanctified day, a holy day, and He says: "Keep this day holy by resting like I did." And then we go about and we do whatever we want on that day. We don't rest. We go to work. We go and buy merchandise from other people who are working, going to stores, buying things online, whatever.

And we treat it like any other day, when He says, "Here, this is holy. Keep this holy. Keep this thing pure." Is that love for us to set it aside and just stomp all over it? No! And Yahweh put the Sabbath in the "top 10" list. It must be important to Him even if it may not be important to other people.

It looks, to me, like it is very important to Him because He put it in the ten commands. He considered it to be important.

And so, profaning His holy things is not love. The first four, maybe the first five commandments, have to do with loving Yahweh. And the fifth one, being to honor your father and mother, could apply to Yahweh as well, that we would honor Him.

And then the latter five, or maybe six, has to do with how we love our neighbor. And those commands are acts of love toward Yahweh and acts of love toward our neighbor when we observe them. You can't saw them out. You can't blot them out. You can't change them. You can't alter them.

His Word is unalterable. They are written with His own finger to solidify and signify the finality and eternal nature of all ten. And so, keeping those commands are an act of love toward Yahweh and toward our neighbor. You cannot take them out.

And so, then the pastor says: "Paul condemned Peter in Galatians 2, because he tried to mix law and grace, and tried to compel the Gentiles to live as Jews. Read again Galatians 2:16."

All right, well, let's look at this. In Galatians 2 and verse 11, it says:

 Galatians 2:11 - Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

12 - for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

13 - And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Now what is it about this? What was hypocritical? What is going on here in Galatians chapter 2? And why was Paul bold enough to rebuke Peter (or Kepha), the man who walked with Messiah for three-and-a-half years? Why was he so bold toward him and the rest of the Jewish believers?

Well, they just had this council in Acts 15. They came to Antioch to deliver the decision to the brethren. Everyone stood at the council. Peter himself stood up, and Paul and Barnabas (still with Paul), and said the good news they had been proclaiming was good and right.

And so, for both of them to withdraw from keeping company with Gentiles was hypocritical. They were being hypocrites. They were not standing with this truth that the Gentiles would be accepted into the brotherhood of believers and instead they were submitting to a different gospel.

"Oh, no. You have to do this thing and become Jews through proselytization and circumcision and then you will be accepted."

So they agreed in principle, but in action they feared those who were of the circumcision, the ones who felt circumcision was necessary for one to be saved.

And so, let's read this:

 Galatians 2:14 - But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before [them] all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

15 - "We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Now, I realize, some would like to look at this and interpret it as Paul basically saying, "If you are a Jew and you live in the manner of the Gentiles," in other words, "Peter, you have forsaken living like a Jew. Now you are going to live like a Gentile and not like a Jew because you have abandoned the Law." Right?

"Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Why do you compel them to live like Jews by not eating with them when you are [according to most interpretations] one who has actually forsaken the Law?" And it says: "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles..."

So, in other words, "If you are Jew and have rightfully abandoned the Law, living like Gentiles, why do you compel Gentiles to keep the Law by only eating with the Jews?" That is how many people look at that scripture.

They like to say, "Well, if you are a Jew and you have abandoned this Law, why are you only eating with the Jews? So you can compel the Gentiles to live like you do?"

Well, this is not the correct understanding. And so, while many might think Paul's statement of Peter living after the manner of Gentiles is actually a good statement, the truth is, living in the manner of a Gentile is a negative statement. It is a negative statement.

Why is it a negative statement? "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." In other words, this statement right here, "living in the manner of Gentiles," you could replace that with, "You, being a Jew, living like a sinner." Right? Because he said "sinners of the Gentiles." We are not sinners of the Gentiles.

"You, being a Jew, are living like a sinner, not like the Jews who are not sinners. Why do you compel Gentiles then to live as Jews?" In other words, "Why do you compel Gentiles to live like Jews? Why do you compel sinners to live like those who don't sin when you are living like a sinner yourself?" THAT is hypocrisy. And that makes more sense.

So while some people think "living in the manner of Gentiles" is just a positive statement, it is pretty clear, by context, it is not a positive statement. It is a negative statement.

In other words, Paul was saying here, "Peter, how can you ever bring Gentile sinners to live a righteous life, like a Jew would, when you are acting like a sinner yourself by playing the hypocrite?"

And so, rather than Paul's rebuke being some kind of proof that we should not keep the Law, it was simply a rebuke that Peter himself was sinning, transgressing the Law, when he chose to fear man over Yahweh and pretend like he is going along with the false gospel playing the hypocrite.

The false good news, which is not even good news at all, is this: Repent and accept Yahushua. THEN learn all of the Torah and obey it. THEN get circumcised. THEN you are Abraham's seed and are justified.

This is the thing that Paul was battling here in the first century. There was the Good News of "the Circumcision," which taught, "Okay, yeah, repent and accept Yahushua, but you are not saved, yet. We won't eat with you, yet. We are not going to accept you into the brotherhood, yet. We are not going to have fellowship with you, yet.

"Repent and receive Messiah, that is all well and good, but next you have to learn the Torah and obey it. Then you finally get circumcised, and after that I will accept you. You will be Abraham's seed. You will be justified." That was their idea. You had to go through a three step program.

One step program-- the True Good News is: Repent in your heart and receive Messiah (Acts 2:38). That is all you need. THEN you are Abraham's seed and justified (declared righteous). You are declared righteous. Nothing added. And that is what Paul was battling in the book of Galatians.

Now what I just shared with you is confirmed in Acts 2:38. This was the message. Peter said to the people at that time:

 Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Yahushua Messiah for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repent and believe in Messiah.

Now I want to point out here, most of the translations of Galatians 2:14 would quote Paul as saying to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

Well, the most ancient manuscripts... I think there is not a single manuscript before the ninth century that reads it the way we are reading it here. The older manuscripts actually read: "How can you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

In other words, "If you, being a Jew [a righteous man], live in the manner of Gentiles [a sinner] and not as the Jews [righteous men], how can you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" How will you ever compel them to keep Torah like a Jewish man when you are breaking it yourself being a sinner?

And then, you take out this "who are," which is in italics, and put a comma there. "We, Jews by nature, not sinners of the Gentiles." In other words, "We are Jews by nature. We are raised in keeping the Law. We are not sinners. So quit living like a Gentile sinner. Otherwise, how could you ever compel the Gentiles to live righteously?"

You don't believe me, do you? Some of you listening are saying, "Being a Jew means being righteous? Uh, I don't think so." Well, you might disagree with Paul.

 Romans 2:17 - Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in Elohim,

18 - and know [His] will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,

You know His will. Because you are a Jew. And approve the things that are excellent. Because you are a Jew.

How do you know what His will is? How do you approve of things that are excellent? You are instructed out of the Law. That is how you know. And because you are instructed out of the Law concerning the things that are excellent, concerning the knowledge of His will, you are confident that you are a guide to the blind.

 Romans 2:19 - and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,

Could it get any clearer than that? And because you know His will, being instructed out of the Law, you are:

 Romans 2:20 - an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.

21 - You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?

He is not criticizing a Jewish person for having observed the Law, for having known the way of light, the way of truth. He is saying, if you are going to teach people, you need to do it yourself.

And that is obvious, of course. Paul is making a point just like he did to Peter. If you are going to instruct the Gentile people, do not be a hypocrite. Keep it yourself. Be a light to them through your actions, not just your words.

Because he said, "Jews, you know the will of Yahweh." There are people who do not know the will of Yahweh. And so, he is pointing out basically the same thing he was telling Peter.

Now I don't know how anyone can speak against this. It couldn't be any plainer than that-- that we know His will, we approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the Law.


 Romans 2:22 - You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

23 - You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor Elohim through breaking the law?

If you want to dishonor Elohim, go ahead. Break the Law. Do not do what the Law tells you to do. You will dishonor Elohim whether you mean to or not. You can't get any plainer than that, I don't think.

He goes on to say: "Although we are not under the law, yet we still keep a day of rest, which is called the Sabbath day, because men were called to do so before the giving of the law, but it is not to be confused with the day of worship, which we Christians keep as the first day of the week.

"The first day of the week is the pastor's hardest work day and is not a day of rest. It is a day of worship."

Now that blew me away when I read this. I said, "Does this mean that you refrain from work on the Sabbath day and you do all your work then on Sunday as a pastor of a church?"

Well, in reality, Matthew 12:5-6, Yahushua said:

 Matthew 12:5 - "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

In other words, they would do acts of ministry on the Sabbath and that is not considered to be Sabbath breaking. They are blameless.

And so, if you are focused on spiritual ministries and doing things like what I am doing right now, it is a justifiable act. It is actually hard. It is work. It is. I mean, in a sense. I am certainly not sleeping right now. There is work it took to put this together today.

But it is for Yahweh. It is similar to what the priests were permitted to do on Sabbath. And Yahushua Himself said:

 Matthew 12:6 - "Yet I say to you that in this place there is [One] greater than the temple.

And so, how much more so would we be justified in holding a day of worship on the Sabbath day, because the actual command is:

 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.

A holy convocation implies gathering together to hear the Word. The seventh day is a holy convocation, not the first day of the week.

In fact, in the book of James chapter 2 and verse 2, it says:

 James 2:2 - For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes,

Do you know what that word "assembly" is in the Greek? Synagogue. Look it up in your concordance. It is "synagogue." So they were meeting in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. That was the day of worship. And I pointed this out to the pastor.

So then the pastor said: "The Christian Gentile is not an Israelite or Jewish, but is the bride of Christ, His body, the church. We are two separate people of God. Spiritually, we are the children of Abraham, but not physically, as is the Jew, who has specific promises from God not given to the church.

"Therefore, we are separate people. Christian Gentiles are still Gentiles. Christian Jews are still Jews." Interesting.

So then I bring up my questions for the pastor. 1. "First of all, why would Paul refer to Gentiles as, 'in time past Gentiles,' in Ephesians 2 [in other words, in time past, you were Gentiles], indicating they're not Gentiles anymore, and then say they WERE aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise...

"... if the Gentiles were actually separate [as he says here, "separate people"] and did not inherit the same promises as Israel?"

If the Gentiles were actually separate, why is he saying they are not separate, they are joined, that they WERE strangers, they WERE aliens? If the Gentiles are separate, did not inherit the same promises, then Paul's writings here in Ephesians 2 wouldn't make any sense.

 Ephesians 2:11 - Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh-- who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--

And the King James has "in time past Gentiles."

 Ephesians 2:12 - that at that time you were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without Elohim in the world.

At that time. Back then, when you were a Gentile. You are not anymore. You were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel back then. You are not anymore.

The second question for him was: 2. "Why would Paul say there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in the Messiah Yahushua, in Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, Colossians 3:11? We are all one, so we're one people."

 Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yahushua.

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

You become Abraham's seed through Messiah.

 Romans 10:12 - For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Master over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

13 - For "whoever calls on the name of YAHWEH shall be saved."

Why don't we do that? Whether you are Jew or Greek, call upon the name of Yahweh.

Then we have Colossians 3:9.

 Colossians 3:9 - Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,

10 - and have put on the new [man] who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

11 - where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave [nor] free, but Messiah [is] all and in all.

And then the third question for him: 3. "If we have two camps, and the Jews are not a part of the bride of Messiah, are you excluding the 12 apostles and Paul himself from being a part of the bride? They were Jewish. Are you saying Peter, Paul, James, John, none of them were part of the bride of Messiah?" Nonsense! Absolute nonsense!

They were Jewish men. They were a part of the bride of Messiah.

Fourthly: 4. "Are the Gentiles not grafted into the natural branches and, therefore, becoming a part of the same tree? According to Romans 11 they are."

Fifthly: 5. "If Jews who rejected Messiah want to be a part of the natural tree, don't even they have to be grafted back into that same tree? Romans 11:23." Absolutely!

 Romans 11:22 - Therefore consider the goodness and severity of Elohim: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in [His] goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

You have to continue in His goodness. You have to keep Yahweh's Law. The Law is just, holy, good. Right? Otherwise, you also will be cut off just as they were.

 Romans 11:23 - And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for Elohim is able to graft them in again.

24 - For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree?

Sixth question: 6. "How can Gentiles be children of Abraham, but not be Israel? I don't see any difference between calling myself Abraham's seed and calling myself Israel. There is no difference. Galatians 3:28."

 Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yahushua.

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

If you are Abraham's seed, then you are Israel. Plain and simple.

Seventh question: 7. "How can the Gentiles be a partaker of the New Covenant, unless they join themselves to Israel through the Messiah? Jeremiah 31:31 says that we are all-- that the new covenant is only made with Israel and Judah."

Let's read it:

 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? The house of Israel and the house of 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.

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? With the house of Israel.

What law? What law is He talking about? The Law of Yahweh. The only law that there ever was.

Whose minds? Israel's minds.

Whose hearts? Israel and Judah. That's who.

Whose Elohim? The Elohim of Israel and Judah.

And who is "they"? Israel and Judah.

How do we become a part of this covenant? We get grafted in. We have to be Israel through Messiah. It is through Messiah we become Israelites.

Then he says: "Today, one cannot keep the law, if he wanted to, for there is no priesthood; therefore, no legitimate sacrifice, and so one cannot keep these commandments. Christ is the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world, and not the Old Testament sacrifices or law. Hebrews chapter 9.

"There is much more that could be said. These are some thoughts I put down, as I listened to the Bible study. The new covenant and old covenant must be kept separate."

All right. I have to hurry along here. We are getting close to the end. But he makes this point, "Well, you can't keep the law because there is no priesthood. You can't keep it."

Well, it is no different than Daniel. When Daniel was in Babylon, it says Daniel was blameless. Where was the priesthood? Where was it? Nowhere. And yet, he was a blameless man. So we can keep the Law even though we happen to be right now living in Babylon so to speak.

So it is possible for us to be righteous. Not because of our own works, but it is possible for us to observe the Law.

He is trying to do things to discourage people from being obedient. "Well, if you can't obey all of it, just throw the whole thing out." But that is not the right attitude. It is not a good attitude. It is not an obedient attitude.

So if we are joined to the New Covenant and the Law is written in our hearts, that means Yahweh is going to instruct us on what we should do and when we should do it. Yahweh will instruct us. He will write His Law right here on our hearts.

He will write it there and we will learn His will and we will be instructed concerning the things that are excellent. And we will be spiritually minded, no longer carnally minded. And we will learn to be just. We will learn to be holy. We will learn to be good.

That is what the Law is there for, to instruct us-- not to cleanse us from sin, not to purify us from unrighteousness. That is what Messiah's role is to do. But it does teach us: "This is the right way. Walk in it." Indisputably the New Testament confirms this. Indisputably.

So what I am saying is, it is time for us to go back and research and to contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

We need to go further back than seventeenth century Baptist preaching. We need to go further back than John Calvin. We need to go further back than Martin Luther to get back to the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

 Jude 1:3 - Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Where we need to go is first century teachings-- the Scriptures. Yes, Romans. Yes, Galatians. Yes, Colossians. Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yes, let's get back to that.

And when he says here, "The new covenant and the old covenant must be kept separate," well, it is given to the same people. It is given to the same people and both are based on the Law. Undeniably.

The problem is, even when Paul was talking to the Ephesian elders, he said:

 Acts 20:29 - "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

Even then there were wolves in the midst of the sheep. So what we really have to do is go back to the first century walk. And there is one way you can be one-hundred percent sure whether or not you are doing what you are supposed to be doing as a follower of Messiah, and that is-- follow Him!

Do what He did. Walk as He walked step-in-step. Walk as He walked, as He has laid the footprints out before us. If we walk in those same footprints, keeping the Law as He did, then we will know we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, we are living the way we are supposed to be living, because the Messiah Himself did it.

And if He lives in you now, He wants to do those things in you that He did when He was on the earth.

Now this letter I wrote to the pastor, he wrote a reply. And I may share that next week. We will see how that goes. But, brothers, these are the things we are often having to respond to. And the way that I understand it regarding the keeping of Yahweh's Law makes everything so simple, so easy to understand.

We broke the Law. The Messiah came to cleanse us for those times we broke the Law. And now, since we have repented, we will seek to keep it now.

The idea of we broke the Law, the Messiah came and took the Law away, and now we have some new confusing law that is not clearly defined-- except maybe some words in the New Testament-- and then later in the one-thousand year reign He is going to bring it back again, to me that is convoluted theology.

Very simple: Yahweh's Word is Yahweh's Word. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And the Messiah, who kept the Sabbath yesterday, wants to keep it today. And we will all (Isaiah 66:22-24) keep it for eternity.

I hope this has been helpful to you. I have enjoyed sharing. We will see what happens next week. Until then, brothers and sisters, may Yahweh guide us to all truth. May Yahweh cause us to understand His Word. And may Yahweh bless you, and may Yahweh have mercy on us all.

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