

### By J.S. Clark

Copyright 2012 Jesse Clark

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

## Table of Contents

Foreword

### Groundwork

Where to Begin?

What We Know and How We Have Forgotten It

Leading the Witness

What God Has to Say

Looking for the Signal

New Covenant or Anti-Covenant?

The Apostles

The Other Bookend of the New Testament Scriptures

### Objections

Reconciling our Fears

The Short Case Files

Paul of Romans

Paul of Galatians

Paul of Colossians

Paul? Of Hebrews

### Rediscovering the New

What Need is There for Messiah?

How to Keep Torah

Conclusion

Selected Bibliography

About J.S. Clark

To Yeshua, the Messiah, the Way for whom we have waited since the Veil was first made.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?

— _Yeshua (Jesus), John 5:46-47_

## Foreword

It does seem odd to have "Foreword" at the beginning of a book titled _Backwards_.

That aside, I did have something to say. When I started this book, it was as a rebuttal. Much of it actually echoes from a personal study I called "The Case for Torah", which was a ninety-eight page response to objections that I had heard as of around 2005. It was motivated by a Baptist Church's study of Romans. It was relatively good looking back. It was much of what I needed at the time, though a good portion of it I have since corrected or outgrown.

The main difference between that work, what I thought this work would be, and what this work would become was that the former theses were negative. It was a response, a reaction; a defense against the argument that the Torah had passed. Yet, God took this and through it, He grew me. Instead of a negation, this study is about being _for something_. _For_ the idea that we need Torah. That our lives are better for Torah. That Torah is a gift from a loving Father that shows you how He cares because of this gift.

I am grateful; I am glad, for this change. It has ministered to me, and I hope it will minister to you.

## Groundwork

## Where to Begin?

How do you start a battle? Do you arm your troops with weapons, or first rally their fighting spirits? The question of Torah is a spiritual battle, and there is no use in hiding it, this is a book that says Christians should foundationally live by the Torah found in the first five books of the Bible. There are nuances to that thought—words that must be explained so that your meaning and my meaning are the same—but that is the basic premise.

But I have been where many of us have been and still are. I was raised as a non-denominational Christian, mostly in smaller less sectarian churches. I would even say that I spent more than half my life (though it is getting close to even now) on the other side saying that Torah was not to be kept, that we are under grace and not the law. Yet, as is God's way often times, it was the last of those opposing years that I spent most consciously and ardently opposed to this doctrine—and it was out of those years that I actually turned around. Like the fever breaking when the battle had been decided.

Looking back, especially of late, I have seen that the problem with accepting Torah is not one of scriptural evidence. The evidence will speak for itself—literally. The problem is one of perspective, an emotional perspective. We have taught and been taught a doctrinal tradition surrounding the Torah that makes it nearly impossible to conceive of keeping it. Many reading this book right now will picture children being stoned to death for disobedience; the Pharisees looking to stone the adulteress that Jesus saved; the quibbling over taxes and divorce; the mean-spiritedness. I do not mean to denigrate these feelings. Emotions are a gift from God. They are meant to be had, but I think more importantly they are opportunities to draw near to God. To ask Him to explain them. Fortunately, these emotional obstacles are not based in facts but in confusion.

God rarely changes people over night. Your verdict on the matter will probably not change immediately because of this book, certainly not due to any human influence. Each of us has a journey that we walk with God. I only pray this was a stop that pointed you onto the next stage. So, beginning this journey, where does one start? Should we talk about what the Torah really says? Shall we talk about the love? The giving? The rejoicing? The practicality? Or should we start with the doctrine, the hearer being out-maneuvered like a chess match inevitably drawn to checkmate?

If you find yourself overwhelmed by the emotional charge, feeling that the mere idea of following Torah is somehow a slap in the face of Jesus, or a death march towards a life of legalistic agonizing ritual, then I invite you to skip ahead to the first three sub-sections of the chapter "Objections". However, I felt led to begin with the doctrine.

Why? Doctrine has become a dirty word, but it is not dirty. Doctrine is the software on which we run. Why should you be faithful to your spouse? It is not because of your feelings; faithfulness is most fully tested at the point that your feelings push your spouse away. You remain faithful because with your conscious will you hold to a truth, like a man clinging to a rock as his only hope from the storm. To be faithful you have to hold to something that does not move. When Jesus faced Satan's three temptations, did He talk about how it would make Him feel to bow down to Satan or to tempt God? How it would rob Him of His peace? Certainly it would have, but He answered with the unchanging word of God.

And if you think about it long enough, you realize your emotions flow from the truth that you hold or the lack of truth. When I feel depressed it is because I see all my problems, but in the back of my mind I _believe_ that those problems go on forever, that their consequences can never be undone. Life will never be as good in the wake of these problems as it would be without them. Yet, when I have hope, it is because I hold to the truth that God is good and loving and _my_ Father. He is looking out for me, and He will not allow any of these problems to rob me of anything. In fact, God orchestrated them into my life to bring me to a better future. If my car breaks down or I cannot pay my bills this month, He teaches me that I do not depend on money for my provision. I do not depend on my car for provision. I might not like it when it happens, but eventually, if I look to Him, I see that those things are passing. I may enjoy them, but I never depend on them. When I hold that truth inside, then I begin to feel less strain from such problems. That makes me a more peaceful person, so the trial is not a test to see if we fail; it is a proving that makes us more like Him.

We can see that emotions flow from our grasp on truth. I find that interesting because the Hebrew word for "commandment" does not mean something you are compelled to do, but rather something you are to put into your nature. I do not steal, not because I am not allowed to steal, but because that is who I am. I do not commit adultery because that is who I am. That is what writing on the heart is all about, and it is God's work.

So I shall start with doctrine. You may doubt with your feelings, but when you cling to the Word, it will change your feelings. I know it has mine.

##  What We Know and How We have Forgotten It

If another Christian came up to you and said that God told him that he could have multiple wives, what would you say? Or less hypothetically, what if he said, "What do you think of The Book of Mormon?"

I am guessing your response to either, if you are like many Christians, would be, "I don't believe that's true." If he asks why, you would probably say because they contradict the word of God. That seems reasonable. How would we know who the Messiah was if there were not prophecies telling us that He was coming, and what He would be like? When He would come? That He would be a son of David? That He would be born of a virgin? What kind of promise would there be of the resurrection and life with God, if the next moment God could just say, "Don't feel like it anymore." And that is not just a standard we assume in the Bible, we use that standard in the day-to-day. You go to work for a certain amount of time; if when payday comes around and your check does not reflect the agreed exchange, will it satisfy you if your employer simply says, "I changed your compensation?" You don't assume that today a warm glass of milk will be equivalent to a shot of espresso. You don't drive down the street and decide that maybe today everyone decided while you were asleep that red means go and green means stop.

I cannot think of a situation in life, in the Scriptures or out of it, where this thinking does not apply, where your expectation is not based upon previous experience and the truths you gleaned out of those experiences. Of course some things seem to defy our expectations. We expect for example that the weather will be different tomorrow. It is a given, but even that is based upon the fact that weather is consistently inconsistent.

But for the non-transient fundamentals, we expect and depend on consistency. That is why we hold high the promise of God in Malachi 3:6, "For I am יהוה, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

A couple quick heads-up, throughout this book, I will be using the name of God (יהוה; read _right to left_ , it is Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey). In most translations this has been, with good intentions, wrongly sanitized to simply capitalized LORD or capitalized ADONAI. Those words are used as place holders for His name, but it is His name that we are commanded to praise and honor. There is debate about how to say His name—Yahweh, Yahveh, Yehovah, etc, are all contenders, but I think we can trust that יהוה knows to whom you are talking. The nature of this topic will require occasional Hebrew or Greek word lessons, but I'll try to keep them relevant to the subject and repeat them from time to time. I'm trying not to do this willy-nilly. There are reasons why I replace some words with the Hebrew origins, which should become apparent as we move along.

It is because of the unchanging quality expressed by Malachi that יהוה says His people are not consumed. The continuation of God's people, our very salvation, is based upon the truth that God is not going to have a mid-life crisis. And God knows that, which is why He made another promise in Amos 3:7, "Surely, the lord יהוה will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Why does He make that promise? In verses 4-6, He explains, how will people know how to act, what choices to make, except they recognize a signal and know what it means? We all know that green means go, and red means stop. If the traffic lights start spitting our chartreuse, violet, and mocha, then no one can expect us to know what is being signaled.

Why belabor this? It is interesting, but obvious. The reason is that we know these things to be true. We trust it instinctively. We would go insane otherwise. Yet, as followers of Yeshua (Jesus), we have been taught to forget this. Allow me to demonstrate. If I, as a Christian, tell you that I believe we should live the Torah (what is called the Law of Moses), you would probably say that we are no longer under the law but under grace and start quoting Galatians, maybe Romans, probably Colossians. How is it, that the first reference you give on how you should live your life in everyday interactions is in the last 33% of what you say is the inspired word of God?

This is a book about why we _should_ live the Torah. Not about how we should _not_ live by the Spirit, _not_ how we should pit Old Testament writers against New Testament writers, _not_ how we should be legalistically bunched up inside as though we were playing tackle football on a team of one inside a minefield. I am proposing to you the premise that the standard, the default thinking—the green means go; the red means stop—should be that the Torah is to be kept and that the whole of scripture is consistent with that. Definitions will follow, but we have to first accept—or reject—that whatever Torah is, God has created us to live according to it.

##  Leading the Witness

With the five hundred pound gorilla out of the way, ask yourself how well you really know your Bible? The assumption being that the primary foundation of your faith is in fact the written Word of God under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit? That does not conflict with God's human out-sourced instruction; pastors, teachers, disciple-makers. His Word clearly teaches us to teach and to be taught beyond the direct God-to-Individual relationship, but if you do not anchor in the Holy Scriptures as Yeshua called them, then which "Jesus" are you following? The Muslims have a Jesus, so do the Hindus, the Mormons, and the Jonesboro Baptists. If you want to go by the most compiled, historically vetted account, you have the four Gospels. And where did that Jesus get His doctrine? From the Father of course, but in the Gospels alone, Yeshua is quoted thirty-five times using what is called the Tanakh (Old Testament).

In fact, Yeshua's personal defense against temptation when facing the Devil was in all three cases to use _those_ Scriptures as His spiritual defense. Of further interest, all three of His quotes from the Torah, specifically the book of Deuteronomy (8:3, 6:16 & 13). Yeshua further corrected His disciples and His opponents for _not_ knowing what the Tanakh said. On the road to Emmaus the disciples' hearts "burned within" as He opened the Scriptures. He said to search the Tanakh because it wrote of Him.

None of this is to elevate the Tanakh over what is called the New Testament, but it should be clearly understood that at the time of Yeshua's life, death, resurrection, and ministry of His Apostles that it was what we call the Old Testament that was the foundational canon. The Tanakh was the educational primer for all that would follow.

The book you are reading right now is for Christians who want to live like Christ. It is a commitment, an engaged way of living, not for those who—at least at the moment—go to church and are not yet sure why. And that engaged life cannot be lived when the opportunity is not taken to study the scriptures, both Tanakh and New Testament, and graft them into the very constitution of your soul. So, again the question, how well do you know the scriptures? I say that to get context. What was the _past_ with which the present would be _consistent_? What happened to Israel prior to the advent of Yeshua? What was the history of God's people, the history of _your_ people?

In my personal experience, the scriptures were fed to me like a bag full of fortune cookies; a bunch of neat sayings; some short stories that were insightful, entertaining, epic, but really unrelated. Only the preacher could tie them together into something meaningful. How about you? In an average sermon, you might jump through three or four books, but what connects those books? Or even chapters? Do you see a single continuous narrative, or a fragment soup? Have you ever noticed the changing tone in Paul's letters as his list of people to thank for standing by him dwindles? Did you catch when Mark, after being suspended from the ministry, became "profitable" again in Paul's eyes? Did you notice where Yeshua was standing when He was talking to the woman at the well? Did you ever think that perhaps the reason the Persian King was open to Nehemiah's request was because of the influence of Daniel? Or Perhaps the Queen sitting by his side—which was unusual—might have been Esther as some conclude? My point is if you step back, and God gives it to you, you will see that front-to-back the Bible is a single continuous story. A single _Word_ , even. Pretty much every book takes up where another leaves off or is overlapping. The sons of Abraham go into Egypt in Genesis; they come out in Exodus. Judges is the time after that, and Ruth is in the time of Judges, which produces the line of David. David is anointed king by the last of the Judges, Samuel, in I Samuel. Some overlap, some are after gaps, but none of these events are floating like lost tales of a dead writer.

If more Christians came to this realization, by God's grace, I believe they would see the Bible is suddenly very cohesive and very relevant. As that happens, the question should become very obvious, before understanding the New Testament shouldn't we understand what happened in the Old?

Since our subject is the Torah, why don't we look back to see a bit about its history?

##  What God Has to Say

The Torah has many aspects. In English Bibles it is rendered "law". There is a sense in which that could be true, but stories have stories behind them and so do words. When I say law, do you think protection? Do you think oppression? Do you think necessary good? Or do you think rigid? Unjust? Let us see if law even fits or might we find a better word?

The first use of the word Torah is Genesis 26:4-5, where speaking of Abraham and not Moses, יהוה says that _the reason_ He would bless his seed and give them the Promised Land, was because Abraham kept His Torah. In addition to that blessing, in Genesis 18, יהוה decides to reveal to him what He is about to do to Sodom and Gomorrah. John 15:15 tells us that the difference between a servant and a friend is that the servant does not know what his lord is doing. Why is Abraham being included as a friend in Genesis 18:18-19? Because he will command his children after him to walk in the ways of יהוה and _because of that_ become a great nation.

How can Abraham be keeping Torah? This could be confusing because we teach in most churches that the Torah came by Moses. I will not spend too much time on this, but there is a prevalent rabbinic tradition that the Torah was known at least partially before Moses, but only codified and written with Moses, and there is evidence for this. In Genesis 7, Noah knows the difference between clean and unclean animals, and like Abel knows how to offer a pleasing sacrifice. In Genesis 38, Judah's family already knows the custom of raising up seed to a dead brother; God judges one of Judah's sons for being wicked and transgressing this, and then Judah confesses his own fault for not causing the command to be fulfilled when he does not give his third son. In Genesis 14, Abraham tithes.

This is only a partial list, more could be uncovered, such as the obvious example that Abraham is a sheep herder and not a pig herder, or that Lot was just. The point is that Torah, though embodied in the first five books of the Bible, is not exclusively what was given by Moses. So what is Torah?

The word Torah comes from the Hebrew word " _yarah_ ", meaning to flow or rain down. To shoot, or to point out. It is _used_ as the idea of teaching. Torah is you walking along and God "pointing out" what is going on around you and what it means. In this sense, the entire Bible is Torah, so is direct revelation from God, even the beauty of a flower or truth seen in a secular story is Torah in this sense. From this sense, and from the picture of "raining", one might easily make the case that the Spirit is Torah because it is the Spirit that points out truth and goodness in the flower or that secular story.

Yet, Torah is also law in the sense that your father says, "Don't touch that! You'll burn yourself!" There is a command to be kept, but the intent of the speaking is instruction not restriction. If you understand what hot is and that the stove is hot, you will for the sake of goodness not touch the stove. The obedience is an application of the instruction.

But despite these broader senses, the rest of scripture does specifically identify the first five books as the Torah. Think of it like other forms of education. You have time or an instance that is designated as a "lesson" whether on paper in a book or just a learning experience. And yet, while that is called a lesson, is not every daily moment also a lesson of one kind or another? It may be both, but in the literal sense, a lesson is a specific instance. A way to reconcile this broader and narrower view of Torah would be to remember Hebrews 11:3, " . . . things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." In this case, the ink strokes that you see in the first five books are seen, but they, like the rest of scripture, are produced by the Spirit which is unseen. The ink strokes you see are Torah, but they are pushed to the surface by things we do not see which is also Torah.

So what does Torah itself, anchored in these first five books, tell us about this instruction?

There are three points about the Torah, which the Torah itself will make, that I believe are the most crucial for understanding. Firstly, Deuteronomy 10:13 tells us that the commandments were given for our good. Eight times in Deuteronomy it says to keep God's instructions so that it might "go well with thee."

"Well" is " _tov_ ", Hebrew for "good". An interesting secondary detail, what we call Hebrew script today is post-Babylonian Hebrew, but in the time of Moses a more pictographic version of the script was used. These older letters often give more understanding to the word. With _tov_ , one possible interpretation is what surrounds is also what is inside. There is no duality. The good appearance is also the good on the inside. Deuteronomy 4:5-7 further says that when kept these commandments will show us as a wise and understanding nation, and make us seen as great because of how _near_ God is when we call. Let that sink in.

No really. Let that sink in.

I was raised in a non-denominational, Christian home. I was blessed to have been born to such parents. My father and mother were a gift from God to raise me with a sense that the Word of God was important, all important. Truth and life came through it. The Word and the God that spoke it were never trivial.

As a result of this seriousness surrounding our family faith, I experienced several different churches in my youth. Because of this, I can say from first hand experience that the average Christian church and family teaches that the Torah is a burden. We point to the Pharisees and say Torah was unreasonable. Look how they treated those who needed healing on the Sabbath? We point to the woman caught in adultery and say how cruel the law was! We look at the rituals and say they were pointless. We mock the Pharisees for their tithing, and say that misguided-Moses was destroying families by advocating divorce.

Does that jive with what יהוה himself just said about the Torah? We are making sport of lampooning His Instruction while at the same time saying it was God breathed and given by His servant Moses who we hold up to our children as a mighty man of God. Isn't one of the first Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will be the prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18)? This is why this book began by addressing consistency. We so easily live in a spiritual setting that attacks this Instruction by rote unconscious habit, and forget that the loving truthful God is the one who said, "This is for your good. This is wise. This is right."

Let that sink in.

### Is Jesus God?

I am not about to prove that, it was a rhetorical device for you to supply the answer. I assume most readers will answer, "Yes, Jesus is God." But, we are about to see another instance of selective inconsistency.

The second thing God's instruction tells us about itself is really what it tells us about _Himself_. This is the second thing in the order of what occurred to me—what God taught me—but to me it seems to be the most important. This issue will start, surprisingly, in the New Testament, in the Gospel of Love. John 1:1-3 is a basic passage of memorization for any kid in AWANA (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed, if you have not heard of this organization). Who does it teach Yeshua is? God. Who did the creating at the beginning? The Word who is God and who is Yeshua. So Genesis could have said, "In the beginning Yeshua created . . . " Colossians 1:16, also confirms this. Now in Genesis 1, God is simply God, _Eloheim_ , but in Genesis 2:4, in the second account, it says that it was יהוה God who created the Heavens and the Earth.

Follow the reasoning, the Word is God, Yeshua is God. The Word did the creating, Yeshua did the creating. יהוה did the creating (Genesis 2), Yeshua is יהוה. No problem, we all easily agree with that. There is nothing Earth shattering there, unless you answered negative to whether Jesus is God. Now, return to the subject of the Torah, the Instruction of God.

In Exodus 6, God appears to Moses calling Himself יהוה. He then lays out His intent to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt, and He says that in doing so " . . . you shall know that I am יהוה, your God . . . " This phrase punctuates the Torah. Here it is used as a promise and an authentication. He tells Israel of an event so when it comes to pass they will know that יהוה is who He claims to be. Again, we see the opening premise of _Backwards_. First you have an explanation of a signal, and then you have the signal. First you learn what green, yellow, and red mean, then you drive accordingly. First you have a prophecy and then you have a fulfillment so that you know the prophecy was true, and you know what the event means. This tandem pair, signal and execution, continues throughout scripture. Isaiah 45 and 46 says God declares the _end_ from the _beginning_. It is God's way of showing us that we can know who He is, and that He is who He says He is.

But there is another function of this announcement, "I am יהוה." It does not just authenticate the certainty of a thing, it also tells us of the speaker. Leviticus 11:44-45 says that the reason to sanctify ourselves is because "I am יהוה." We are to be holy because _He_ is holy. Just as Yeshua taught us to be merciful because our Father is merciful. In John 15, Yeshua says to love one another as _He_ loved. And in John 17:21, Yeshua prays that we might be one as He and the Father are one, and be one in them.

This is amazing! God wants us to be one with Him. See, we are His children; the children are like the Father. We do nothing but what we see our Father do. So when we do God's will, we show that He is our Father. But the real truth, the deep thing that we struggle to hold onto, is that when we do what is right it is not because of our choices alone, but because we are plugged in to God. We are part of God. It is God who does right, and we who live it out. Paul said in Romans 7:18 that nothing good dwells in the flesh, and though we want to do good, we just do not know how. Apart from God, we cannot do anything that is good, right, wise, or noble. Every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, James says. Romans 12:3 says God gives faith. 1 John 4:7 says love is of God. These things all point to the truth that those good things that we have and do and long for, all reside in God.

To me that is a huge comfort. It tells me that every time someone does something good to me it is God loving me. Every hug, every good meal, every starlit sky, every truth spoken, every wisdom held, these are God making a cameo appearance.

This may seem like we are getting far afield. What does this have to do with Torah? We saw that we are to be holy because יהוה is holy. Thus as we will see, "I am יהוה" is not just an authentication, but it encompasses the thought, do thus _because I am thus_. In Leviticus 18, He says, "I am יהוה", and then tells them not to live the way the Egyptians and the Canaanites lived. Instead, because He is יהוה, they are not to commit incest. At least forty-four times in Leviticus alone "I am יהוה" is given as the reason for the command. To what kinds of commands does He attach His name? No incest. Don't eat unclean animals. Don't sacrifice your children. Fear your father and mother. Don't worship false gods. Leave food for the poor. Don't swear falsely. Don't mistreat the handicapped. Don't gossip. Don't bear grudges. Love thy neighbor.

Remember when God said these commands were for our good? In the same place, He said other nations would see these commands kept and see how "nigh" is our God. Have you ever talked with someone about Yeshua, and they said they did not like Christianity because of Christians? Perhaps, you have heard the quote by Brennan Manning, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." That is the essence of this truth.

יהוה puts His name on these commandments because they tell us and the world who He is. Our God is the God who tells us to love each other. The one who says to forgive. The one who cares for the poor. The one who says not to cheat each other. And yes, the one who cares that our sexual relations are not destructive to ourselves, and cares what we eat, and that we tell the truth. The one who teaches us not to be hypocrites.

And that makes sense, because who is יהוה? יהוה is Yeshua! These commands teach us who Yeshua is, what He is like as יהוה; and for those back then waiting for the Messiah, what the Messiah would be like. How then can we call the Torah cruel? We look at the woman caught in adultery and we praise Yeshua for His compassion, and condemn the crowd for keeping the law. The truth is that Yeshua was actually the only one there keeping the Torah, but the bigger point is that we have been taught to look, hear, and speak that Yeshua was good and the Torah was cruel. But it was יהוה Yeshua who gave the Torah! How can we praise Yeshua for His compassion, while condemning the commandment He gave? We cannot. There is a reconciliation to be made; we must tear down these inconsistencies.

### The Third Reason for the Torah

What more reason do you need than to know that keeping His Instruction allows Him to live through you? You want to invite God into your house? Keep the Torah. If because of His Instruction, you forgive someone who has hurt you—Bam! God just walked in.

But wait! There's more!

There is one more contrast to be made. There is a belief that attempting to keep the Torah is a burdensome yoke that, along with being impossible, is contrary to the Spirit and is the path of works based salvation. After all, if you trust in God's grace why would you keep the law? Never mind that Abraham, the father of all those who live by faith, was commended for keeping Torah. But . . . does the Torah teach that you can be justified by yourself in keeping it?

Why did God give His people the Sabbath day? To rest? Well, yes, that was one part of it. But there were other reasons. In Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments are given; the fourth is to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, including rest for your household and down to your work animals, employees, and guests. The reason given is one of memorial for God creating the Earth in six days and resting on the seventh, blessing it, and hallowing it. Again, we see, do thus for I am thus.

Yet, later in Exodus 31:13, God gives another reason for the Sabbath. It is a sign between יהוה and us, that we may know . . . know what? That "I am יהוה that doth sanctify you."

Say what?

How is it possible to think keeping the Torah is an attempt to justify one's self while keeping a sign that it is יהוה who sanctifies? Every time you bless God for the Sabbath you are acknowledging that the work of making you who He intends you to be is His work. Every Sabbath is an acknowledgment of our dependency and therefore of His grace. It is impossible to claim that keeping Torah is an attempt to justify yourself. Keeping Torah is a declaration that God is doing the work.

God says this same thing seven more times in the Torah. In Leviticus 20, He punctuates the prohibition against sacrificing children, and being faithful in your marriages with "I sanctify you." There it is again in Leviticus 21 concerning the conduct of priests. If you are going to claim keeping the Torah as a path to self-sanctification, the priesthood would be the place to look for it, and yet there is יהוה telling us that the work is His.

For that matter, the first annual feast that God's people kept and continue to keep is the Passover where death skips over us because of the blood of a spotless lamb. Was that Moses's idea or the people's? Did they create the lamb and its blood? Was it their idea to mark their doors? What about all the sacrifices? Do we think that the blood of an animal to "ward off" the judgment of God (as some might suppose) was the product of Man's power and inner goodness? Obviously not, these were all things that memorialized, again and again, our dependence on יהוה's sanctifying work. Dependence is by definition an act of faith.

The Torah, therefore, teaches faith over and over and over again. Why do we tithe of our land? Because God is the real provider, not our farming skill. Why do we rest on the Sabbath day instead of trying to squeeze in another work shift? Because God is our real provider, not our employer. Why do we not steal what we want? Because God is our real provider, not that thing we would covet.

This is all to say that keeping Torah is the practice of faith, not the abolishment of it. In fact, that is what the Tanakh teaches in Habakkuk. Speaking of those who trust their own power for provision (1:16), how their souls are lifted up (2:4)—self-justification and pride go hand in hand—the prophet says their soul is _not_ upright, but what? The _just_ shall live by faith.

### Torah is Exactly What It is Called

Instruction, pointing out, that is what the Torah is. That is what יהוה gave us. What He gave us was inspired instruction that was good and right and wise. It taught us who He was, who we were, and who Messiah would be. It taught us that we depend on His grace, and that through His grace we show that we are His people and we show that His ways are happiness.

The question that follows?

Did that change?

##  Looking for the Signal

We started this discussion based on the adherence to consistency. The rules of the game do not change unexpectedly. Again, it is what we all believe automatically, and as Christians we count on it for our salvation. If we did not, then there would not be hope for our future but a legitimate dread . . . what if God changes His mind? What if God looks at the world and says, "You know . . . I don't think Yeshua's blood was enough for two World Wars, starvation of millions while the wealthy have food to burn (literally in their cars), all the murdered unborn, no . . . It's good for the first 80%."

God forbid.

But as we have just seen, יהוה made no apologies for His Torah. He did not hedge His bets and say, "This is the best we can get under the circumstances." He said unequivocally, "This is for your good. Do thus, because I am thus."

And yet, in the modern church it is taken without question that this is no longer the case. Keeping this outdated law is no longer good for us. It is no longer right. Except for the part about not committing adultery. Not that you _have_ to not commit adultery in a legalistic way, but you know . . . you had better not . . . or else the church will punish you for what God no longer cares about. Ok, fine, that one is still law. And the part about loving your neighbor. But that's it! Ok, and the nine commandments because Charlton Heston said them and the ACLU does not like them—with one minor addendum to the one about the Sabbath, where we substitute "any day or no day" in place of a legalistic, specific day.

A little, humor. Please forgive. Notice that much humor is based on inconsistency?

For now, we can take it as granted that the prevailing modern church doctrine is right. The Torah is past expiration. But, because we know God is not inconsistent, there must be somewhere before the New Testament that God prepared us for the disappearance of the Torah. After all, God has told us the _end from the beginning_. Let us now take a review of the Tanakh looking for how the scriptural mindset towards the Torah changes over time.

### 213 Verses, History

We do not have to cover all of those, just enough to look for patterns. Not just supporting or contrary scriptures, but patterns. If you try, you can find scripture for divorce. You can find scripture that says you should act just like the people around you. You can find scripture to support bowing to other gods. Scriptures for universalism. Scriptures for suicide. By lifting a scripture out from among its sea of witnesses, we can make a case for just about any human doctrine. But if you put that scripture back where it belongs, suddenly, "Oh, that didn't mean that at all." So we want to be aware of anomalies because they hint at something that we don't yet understand, but the pattern, the preponderance of the evidence, is what we are looking to live by.

The very first reference to the Torah after the books of Moses is in the book of Moses's successor, beginning what might be described as the more historically-purposed books. Joshua—whom I might remind you is widely held up as foreshadow of Messiah—in chapter one, is told by יהוה not to go to the left or the right of the Torah and to keep it always in his mouth. Skipping along to David—the man after God's own heart, the father of Yeshua the Messiah—we find him on his deathbed in 1 Kings 2:3-4 commanding his son Solomon to keep the commands as written in Torah so that God would prosper him. In 2 Kings, seven times the house of Judah and Israel are either praised or reproved on the basis of whether they kept Torah. The same continues in Chronicles 1 and 2. In Ezra as some of God's people are returning from captivity—captivity due to not keeping Torah (foretold in Leviticus 26)—began to keep Torah, and to teach it to the people, and make a covenant again to keep it. The book of Nehemiah confirms this ministry, praising the dedication of the people for coming together as one person to hear the entire Torah, and Ezra as he teaches the Torah in such a way as to be understood. In 9:13, the Levites are recounting the Exodus and praising God's Torah as True Torah, Hebrew " _emet_ " (a Torah you can stand on as a foundation). To them, the statutes and commandments were good ( _tov_ , inside and out)!

Nehemiah continues by confessing that while the commands were for a good life, it was the people who were disobedient, proud, and hard-hearted. God was continually merciful, forbearing as their sins mounted, and yet when judgment came it was for those sins. This is incredibly important to remember. When we come to the scriptures of the Apostles, we joke about how slow the disciples were to get with the post-Torah program—or at least, that is how we have been taught to see the debate—we say, "How could they not see God was doing something completely new?"

Our pre-supposition is that it should be obvious that the Torah given by Moses was of no real value either spiritually or practically. The Apostles should have all been standing by just waiting for the signal to drop-kick it into yesterday. That is a completely backwards thought. Understand what Nehemiah and Ezra are confessing. Israel suffered hundreds of years of oppression by the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Romans, even from each other as they divided in civil war; all of which the prophets predicted and the books of history recorded as being because they chose not to keep Torah. Not because the slipped up, but because they rejected it and pursued other gods with the torah of other gods, the ways of other gods.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that after hundreds of years of suffering brought on by _not_ keeping Torah that all of Messiah's followers were eagerly listening to the 'good' news that the Torah was done away with? They were supposed to look back at their history and forget that the good times came faithfully from God when they kept Torah and that drought, invasion, and slavery were the result of not keeping Torah.

Does that seem consistent to you?

### 213 Verses, the Books of Wisdom

The reason for the continuing title "213 Verses . . . " is because if you get a simple, free, bible study program like E-Sword you can do the same search I have. Most of this portion of the book is simply my drawing attention to (pointing out?) what you can find by searching for the word Torah (Strong's H8451) and reading each reference in order. You for yourself can judge whether there is a shift in how the Torah is presented within the inspired word of God.

We have seen in the historical books that the message from God has not changed. He keeps on saying, "Why won't you just live my way so that you can live well?"

But maybe, as is commonly taught, He was just giving them a task which He knew was impossible in order to show them that it was impossible. The equivalent of simply telling them to jump on their right foot every third Tuesday, simply to show them that it could not be done. Maybe, He starts to reveal that the Torah is just a learning exercise and not actually something that is at its core, intrinsically, good?

In Psalm 1. The _first_ Psalm. The singer is talking about the life and way of the blessed man, the happy man. Verse two, tells us that he _delights_ in the Torah. Delight here is " _kayfets_ ", it means to desire, to find valuable. The happy man wants the Torah. The Psalms mention Torah by name thirty-five times, that does not include synonyms like commandments, statutes, ordinances, etc . . . Of those thirty-five, zero are negative mentions. Of those thirty-five times, twenty-five of them are in the Bible's longest chapter, Psalm 119. On average, in 119, the Torah is praised more than once every seven verses.

What are some specific things Psalms says? 19:7: it is perfect, entire, full, converting or more correctly _turning back_ the soul. It tells you that you have gone the wrong way and how to go back. If you take the next three verses as also referring to Torah (the commandments, statutes, judgments, testimony . . . ) then it is sure, pure, enlightening, right, enduring, and more desirable than gold. 37:31 says the Torah is in the heart of the righteous. In Psalm 40, in the passage quoted by Yeshua about Himself "Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me . . . ," it continues that He delights to do God's will, " . . . Yea, thy Torah is within my heart." Psalm 78 says that the Torah was given so that the children's children's children should set their hope in God and keep His commandments.

Interestingly, in Psalm 89, God says if the children of David break His commandments, then He will chasten them but not take His loving-kindness away. The judgments of God upon His people have been portrayed as the eager wrath of some primitive and petty god, again betraying that we do not see the "Old Testament God" as the same as the "New Testament God." Even during this time, when God was "cruelly burdening" His people with the Torah, He proclaims the everlasting presence of His loving-kindness. He sees no contradiction between compassion and His Torah. Psalm 94 continues this thought; a man whom God chastens and teaches Torah is happy.

Psalm 119; we have to dwell some on this. It is true that the Biblical chapter divisions were added by tradition long after the time of Yeshua. However though the modern book of Psalms is also divided into chapters, at least 116 of the Psalms are textually divided by ascriptions, such as "A Psalm of David", recognizing at least some of these divisions which became chapters. Also in places like Acts 13:33 it mentions what we know as Psalm 2 as "the second psalm". Acts 13:35 also refers to "another _psalm_ ", which we recognize as Psalm 16. These point out that at least the majority of divisions in Psalms were recognized even in Yeshua's day.

Now in our counting, it just so happens that Psalm 119—which is obviously intended as a single work or series of works—is the longest chapter in the Bible. If the words and perhaps the chapters were inspired by God's same Holy Spirit, then wouldn't it show an extraordinary concern with how God's Torah is viewed? Verse one says happy or blessed are the perfect, the whole, the entire (same word as Psalm 19), who walk in God's Torah. The Psalmist prays to be shown wondrous things from Torah. He needs understanding and the word of truth to keep Torah. The wicked forsake it. He delights in it. Torah is better than thousands of gold and silver. Without it for delight, affliction would have destroyed him. He loves it, to meditate on it all day! He weeps because man does not keep it. It is truth.

Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." That is one of the most important verses to me now, as you will see later in this book.

It is suspiciously noteworthy, that when you search for Messianic-themed Psalms with Google, 119 usually does not make the list. Those that do mention it seem to fall into two categories. One reinterprets Torah to be simply a synonym for the Word of God (a synonymity that is almost never applied on New Testament ground). The other group seems to be Torah seeking believers who of course believe the Messiah would be Torah-observant and therefore see Him in every verse. I fall into that latter group. It seems odd that the Psalm written most clearly from a perspective praising God's standard of righteousness would not be included in most lists of Psalms that are considered about the Messiah who we knew would have to be sinless? What other person could so strongly and so continually claim to love God's ways more than the Messiah? If this does not speak of Messiah literally, who could truly live the standard told therein more than the Messiah? Who could say he had chosen the way of truth (v30)? Who could say he has not declined from Torah (v51)?

Anyway, wow. The Psalms have been a source of comfort and encouragement, a channeling of thought and prayer for generations of God's people; and yet, what a stark contrast in the way the psalm writers by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke of Torah versus the way the modern church does?

Proverbs does not talk as much about the Torah, but it could be taken to point to Torah. If the torah of Solomon to his son is light (6:23) then certainly the Torah of our Father is light. 13:14 would say it is a fountain of life. 28:4 actually speaks directly, saying that those that forsake Torah praise the wicked, but those that keep it are their contenders. If you see someone fight evil, it is because they are grounded in righteousness. Or 28:9, if we turn our ears _from_ Torah, our prayer is an abomination.

We are running out of opportunities for God to tell us the Torah is going away, but fortunately, we still have the prophets.

### 213 Verses, The Foretellings

As we continued to see, through history and the words of wisdom, the Bible's perspective on Torah is unwavering. We have already covered the historical portion leading up to Ezra and Nehemiah's time where they were returning from captivity, so we are getting pretty close to the New Testament, and yet . . . not a word about a removal or abolishing of Torah? Not one quote from God or His Servants denouncing it as burdensome or cruel? Not one word?

If this doctrine which is almost universally held by Christianity is true, then there must be some prophetic evidence that it was coming. There must be some light from the prophets that tells us this was expected. Some prophet had to say that when Yeshua arrived as the Son of God, He would make it His mission to sweep away the old instruction that He himself gave.

Isaiah—the first major prophet—will not be that prophet. His opening warning in 1:10 tells the people to listen to God's Torah. Someone might point out that יהוה goes on to say how its practices are iniquity, away with it! But notice verse fourteen says _your_ feasts, while in Leviticus they were the feasts of יהוה. There is a whole teaching further explaining this. The summary would be that if you understand the Torah teaches dependence on God for sanctification and not on some mechanical physical work—a work of the _flesh_ —then you understand _their_ feasts were really mocking counterfeits of God's feast. For example, for an animal to become a sin offering, according to the Torah, confession had to be made (Leviticus 5:5, 16:21, 26:40). What is confession? In Hebrew "confession" is " _yadah_ ". The first use of _yadah_ is rendered praise (Genesis 29:35). If it sounds familiar it is because it is the root of _Yehudah_ (Judah); it means literally to use the hands. Interesting? See, hands are a symbol of power and of intention. What I do with my hands reflects what is in my heart. So when I praise God, I "use my hands" for Him. In other words, my outward expression matches my inward condition. Using the hands is about truth. Makes you wonder where we got the idea to "raise your right hand, and swear that the testimony you give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

So when you believe the truth and express it about God, it is obviously praise because the truth will always praise the Holy One. And if you tell the truth about sin, it will be that sin is what God says it is and therefore give glory to God. Check out the story of Achan in Joshua 7. Note how Joshua asks Achan for confession in 7:19, " My son, _give_ , I pray thee, _glory_ unto the God of Israel, and make confession unto him;" emphasis mine. With this understanding, how could someone come to the temple, kill an animal, and make a false confession—since their heart denies that it was in fact an abomination—and then expect that God was somehow obligated to forgive?

In Isaiah, God was not saying take away your faithful keeping of Torah. He was saying take away the counterfeit, you are not fooling anyone!

That was necessary to say, otherwise chapter two does not make sense because He is prophesying that at that future time, when nations no longer learn war, that many peoples will go to Zion seeking God to teach them Torah. In chapter eight, יהוה talks about that rock of offense which we know is Messiah; that it will cause many to stumble, and what should be done? Seal up the Torah among His disciples (8.16). The idea of a seal is to close something in (Leviticus 15:3, Deuteronomy 32:34). Apparently warning as a disciplinary act that the Torah would no longer be published; perhaps referring to the years of oppression when conquerors forbid keeping Torah? Perhaps even referring to the present when Torah is held in disdain? A sealing was foretold, but that seal keeps it safe within His servants, not keeps His servants "safe" from it.

In chapter forty-two, again speaking of Messiah, the one who would not cry or lift up His voice, the one on whom the Spirit of יהוה rests—the same יהוה that spoke to Moses—it says the isles will wait for His Torah (42:4). Is there some reason from the text to assume that the Messiah's Torah would be different from יהוה's Torah? Or is the definition changing simply to validate a private interpretation? 42:21 says in a prophetic passage about Messiah that יהוה will magnify the Torah. Not diminish, not cast away, _magnify._ Chapter fifty-one says in some future time, Israel will be like Eden and full of rejoicing. It has not happened as far as I can tell, but when it does Torah shall proceed from יהוה(51:3-4). He then identifies the people who know what righteousness is as the people who have His Torah in their heart (51:7). Isaiah 66 says that either in the last days or specifically on the New Heavens and New Earth, all flesh will come at every New Moon and Sabbath to worship before יהוה.

Isaiah has had his say. Does the weeping prophet, Jeremiah, have something to say that will relieve us of this burden that all God's people have praised? In chapter 31, smack dab in the middle of the promise of the New Covenant is the explicit _promise_ that יהוה will "put" or "give" the Torah in our inward parts, and "engrave" it on our hearts. Does that sound like a fading of the Torah or that He is going to put it so deep in our beings that we will be living Torah and not need the written Torah?

Ezekiel? In chapter forty-four, speaking of a future Temple (whether you believe that is an Earthly temple or a Heavenly), it speaks of future priests who shall judge with God's judgments and keep His Torah.

Micah? Chapter four echoes Isaiah that in the last days nations will go to Zion to learn God's ways, and the Torah shall flow from it.

Zechariah? Chapter fourteen says that after the nations all invade Jerusalem and יהוה fights and delivers His people, afterwards all nations will come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles which is in the Torah.

Malachi? God saved this one for last, and I think it is important so. The last prophet in our sequence of the Old Testament (the Jewish canon ends with Chronicles). Malachi 4 has the last word on the Torah before the writings of the Apostles. And what is it?

"Remember ye the Torah of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, _with_ the statutes and judgments."

Not only is the last word for Torah, but He confirms again that it was not Moses's Torah, it was God's Torah. Yet, to avoid the possible reinterpretation of this being some other Torah, it is identified as the one given by Moses.

### Do We Really Want to Hear God's Word?

Are we better than Israel was? Have we come to a higher truth by our freedom from God's Torah? Or are we struggling with the same thing God's people always struggled with, simply keeping God's ways? Did we banish the barbarity and over-regulation of the Torah? Or did we simply justify ourselves away from what it says?

In Stephen's sermon in Acts 6-7, the disciple points out that Israel had a history of rejecting God's servants, so it was no surprise that the Messiah should come unwelcomed. Likewise, if we were familiar with the history of God's people of whom we are part, we would know that we have always walked away from His Instruction. This too is not something new. Just another of those tendencies that were written for our examples (1 Corinthians 10:11).

But I hope that in facing what scripture says, that you have done so with an ear inclined to hearing. It cannot be denied that the Tanakh—the canon which was the foundation of Yeshua's teaching and that of the Apostles—from beginning to end is pro-Torah without even the insinuation that some day the Torah would go away.

What posture, then, should we have going into what is called the New Testament? Now that we have seen what we have seen, can we go forward eagerly assuming the Torah is done away with? The bottom line . . . is it reasonable for God to have expected His people to readily recognize a Messiah that said the opposite of Malachi, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and all the prophets back to Moses?

A Prophet who was _unlike_ Moses?

Have you ever wondered why Yeshua is not accepted by the Jews? Certainly, there is a spiritual blindness that has occurred, but is there perhaps a reason for that? In the beginning, the "church" was primarily Jewish—why did it switch to being primarily gentile? Why is it so hard for a Jew today to "become a Christian"?

Could it be because they, like the saints of the Tanakh, were expecting a pro-Torah Messiah, and the mostly gentile church offers them an anti-Torah Messiah? Here is another way to look at it. As we go through the next section ask yourself—knowing the history and prophets we have just seen; remembering the judgments of oppression, captivity, exile, the rape of your women, the murder of your sons like the Hebrews had endured—would you have accepted a Messiah that was anti-Torah? Or would you have cast him off as a heretic?

##  New Covenant or Anti-Covenant?

For many of us, these may be uncharted waters. In their writings, the Apostles actually support Torah? Continuing the legacies of the prophets, priests, and kings rather than washing them away? Of course, we know their portion of scripture _should_ be consistent with Torah, but is it true? Perhaps that is what frightens some Christians?

If this theory of consistency is true, then to be the Messiah foretold, the man must be a pro-Torah Messiah, and the only one we have ever met is the one who mocks people who keep Torah and calls them sons of the devil. If that is the correct perspective are we in danger, like the Jews, of rejecting Yeshua? That is a fear with a foundation because _if_ He were anti-Torah, Yeshua could not be the Messiah. Christians today do not understand this because they do not know Torah, but the Messiah could not have been anti-Torah even if He did do miracles. יהוה told Israel not just that a prophet like Moses would arise, but in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 He told Israel that false prophets would also rise. If a prophet attempted to turn the people from following יהוה or His Torah, the prophet was to be put to death even if the a sign they gave came true.

Yeshua, if He was against Torah, would be a false Messiah. But I think you will see; it is our perspective that must change, not our Messiah.

Matthew 5:17 is the first word on the Torah that we have in the writings of the Apostles. Of course here the word is Greek " _nomos_ ", rendered law from the idea of parceling out or prescriptive usage, but it is close to the usage of Torah even if it loses the Hebrew root meaning. Yeshua is speaking, what is the very first thing He wants to say on the subject? "Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Does that match with the common teaching that Yeshua is abolishing the Torah? Or is it more like the Tanakh's expectation of a Messiah that would magnify Torah?

I would like to take a moment to deconstruct a presupposition. Most Christians I meet use this very verse with the premise that "fulfill" actually means "finish". So in effect, Yeshua is saying I am not here to destroy, but to finish off the Torah; the proposed effect being the same. This makes at least three kinds of nonsense. First, this would be the opposite of the teaching of all God's prophets, including Isaiah who most clearly talked about the Messiah. Second, the conclusion is the same, so Yeshua would be saying He is not accomplishing, what He is accomplishing. Third, it makes the word the opposite of rational use. When the disciples gathered up the food after the feeding of the five thousands did they take the "full" (same word, Matthew 14:20) baskets and throw them away? When the farmer sees that the ear of corn is full (Mark 4:28), does he cut it down so that it's dead? When Yeshua became full of the Holy Spirit after being baptized, did He throw out the Spirit (Luke 4:1)? When the man "full" of leprosy came to Yeshua, did the leprosy simply leave because it was "finished"? Should we take all the prophecies that were "fulfilled" and tear them out of the Bible since they are "finished"?

Besides commonsense, if there was any doubt whether Yeshua meant fill or finish, He continues in Matthew 5. Just as a reminder, we are in the famous, often-quoted—or at least half-quoted—Sermon on the Mount. Verse nineteen, "Whosoever therefore,"— _therefore_ indicates that what follows is because of what preceded. In other words "Because I have come to fulfill the Torah . . . whoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall _teach_ men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven".

That sounds like a Messiah who is pro-Torah. Sadly, tragically, we have a lot of His disciples today teaching His disciples to break Torah.

Why should this affirmation take us by surprise? We believe Yeshua is יהוה. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. He gave the Torah, why would He be against His own word?

Moving along, in Matthew 7, a passage famous for Yeshua's admonishing to "judge not lest ye be judged". I would summarize the topic as giving. Giving a non-hypocritical judgment. Some people do ask for judgment legitimately, so give them one that is not hypocritical. And regarding those who don't really want judgment, "cast not your pearls before swine." He goes on to say that we, being evil, still know how to give good gifts. You know what your son really needs when he asks for bread. And more so, the Father knows even better how to give a good gift. Yeshua wraps up this sub-thought by saying, _therefore_ (because you know how to give well, and your Father does even better), do unto others as you would have done unto you. You know what a good gift is, whether word or action, so give that. Why? Because this is the Torah and the prophets (Matthew 7:12).

In Yeshua's doctrine, the Torah is how to give a good gift. The Torah is how you do unto others what you _want_ done unto you. Not what you do _not_ want done unto you. Churches teach that the Torah is "taking", but I am convinced it is "giving". Later there will be a portion of this book titled "Objections". There are some legitimate misunderstandings, caused by misinterpretation of the New Testament and misapplication of the Tanakh, but for now begin to let it settle in your mind that this Torah, as understood by Yeshua who gave it, is "give".

There are some of those "Objections" in Matthew and the other Gospels, which I will skip over for now. For the moment, we are looking at whether there is positive evidence that Yeshua was for Torah. Some of those objections seem big and convincing, especially when taken by themselves and interpreted through mainstream doctrine. That is why it is so important to remember that Yeshua is appearing on the tail end of the events in the Tanakh. Looking at anything Yeshua does and _assuming_ it is anti-Torah is simply backwards. The given premise must be that somehow this fits with Torah not against it. Otherwise, He would have been a false Messiah for not magnifying the Torah.

Fortunately, we need not be concerned. Even in the places where there seems to be a conflict between Yeshua and the Torah, we will see Yeshua citing the Torah for confirmation of His standpoint, such as in Matthew 12 with the issue of picking the ears. You will see this again in Matthew 22 when he was asked what the most important command is. He did not say, "Stop worrying about the commands so much." He answers the question with words straight from Torah.

At this point, teetering between conventional doctrine and the thesis of this book, you have to ask yourself, does Yeshua's ministry make sense at all? Without going too in-depth, as it was taught to me, the normal theological position is that the Torah was in force until Christ died on the cross. This was so His righteousness could be satisfactory for those "under the law", afterwards it was "finished" and we were no longer to live by it. Does that make sense? Yeshua spent thirty years on Earth. We infer only three years in active ministry; three years when He taught on and from the Torah; so that at the end of which, _after_ the teaching, His disciples would no longer be living by the sermons He himself taught? That would be like your college professor teaching a doctorate program and then saying, "I went ahead and took your exams so you can brain-dump the last four years." What was the point of upholding Torah, honoring the Temple, affirming the Sabbath, if all of that was to end when His mission was complete? Was it simply to get Him famous so people would believe when He was crucified? If so, why did He spend time teaching instead of non-stop miracle exhibition? Was the teaching just to make people mad so He would get crucified while famous?

The only other conclusion is that He meant us to live as He taught and lived, and He taught Torah.

Continuing our survey for pro-Torah incidents, In Matthew 23:23, Yeshua commends the Scribes and Pharisees for their tithing cumin and mint, but reproves them for omitting judgment, mercy, and faith, which were what? Outside the Torah? No. Weightier matters _of_ the Torah. I stop on that because John 1:17 says grace and truth came by Messiah, and that has added fuel to the fire for the doctrine that the Torah is an ungracious thing. But what 1:17 says is that Moses _gave_ the Torah, not that it was _of_ Moses. Moses is not the origin of the Torah, as Malachi 4:4 said, Moses was the mouth, but God commanded. And likewise it does not say there was no grace or truth before Yeshua arrived it says it _came_ —meaning it was "caused to be"—by Yeshua. And that was true even before He came to dwell among us. Again, Yeshua is יהוה, and יהוה is full of grace and truth, now and always.

Looking over to another gospel, in Luke, we see that Mary was a woman of faith, and Joseph was called a just man. Luke tells of them fulfilling Torah, and they seem to be commended and blessed for it. Notice in chapter two (and all the gospels) that Yeshua, rather than disregarding the Temple, gravitates towards it? In Luke 4, after the temptations, Yeshua teaches in the synagogues as was _His manner_ on the Sabbath. Do you suppose He was allowed to do that because He was teaching against Moses? Do you suppose He spent the Sabbath in a synagogue telling people, "Out with the old and in with the new," and He received glory from "all"? Luke 16:17, again confirms it is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass than one jot from the Torah.

For more unique references, let us visit John who has a very special record in many regards. It has a different tone from the other gospels. Sometimes that confuses, other times it clarifies. In 7:19 is one such clarification. "Did not Moses give you the Torah, and _yet_ none of you keepeth the Torah?" Let that sink in. Between the united message of the Tanakh and this statement, almost all of the Torah confusion in the New Testament should be dissolved. _None of you keep the Torah._

In my upbringing and adult experience in the mainstream church, the Scribes and Pharisees are always held up as the "keepers of the law". Since Yeshua routinely rebukes them, the Torah itself is cast in a negative light, and yet Yeshua is the one saying, "They do not represent the Torah." With one bold stroke, Yeshua denounces them as examples of His Instruction. What does that leave them with? Tradition! Now take that and re-recall for yourself some of those "Objections" that will be addressed later. Think of Matthew 15, what does Yeshua condemn transgressing commandments in favor of? Tradition!

In Matthew 23, Yeshua did say the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat, but another variant text from a purported Hebrew version of Matthew says, "They say they sit . . . " Even if that is not a true accounting, in the Torah there is nothing that gave them doctrinal authority. They have simply assumed they could "warm his seat". In either case Yeshua is not giving them legitimacy, He is simply acknowledging the social position which they occupy. As for the "do as they say, not as they do" portion, a literal reading could read, "as much as they _may_ say . . . " In other words the limits of the observance should be the limits of Torah. If they tell you to do something from Torah, do it. How could Yeshua actually tell people to listen to these guys while simultaneously telling His disciples to "beware the doctrine of the Pharisees"; routinely publicly rebuking them; and even chasing them out of the Temple with a whip?

So much to glean from all this, but the point I was trying to get to was verse 4. " . . . _they_ bind heavy burdens . . . " The point is that human tradition is the burden, not the Torah. This should resolve much going forward in the New Testament because it demonstrates Yeshua is clearly for the Torah, which is consistent with everything that God taught us to expect of His Servant who would _magnify_ the Torah; while at the same time juxtaposing what Yeshua is against, i.e., human tradition and its fallout. Or more specifically, holding human tradition on the same level as Torah. As we will continue to see, especially in Acts and the Pauline epistles, tradition, not Torah, is the recurring villain.

But for now, let us finish with a remembrance of the opening quote, John 5:46-47. Yeshua says explicitly that if we believe Moses, we would believe Yeshua; and if we believe not Moses, how can we believe Yeshua? Lots of believers will say this refers to prophecy. So we are to trust Moses about his prophetic message of the Messiah, but we are not to trust him for what he says is right and good? We believe Moses for the Messiah, but then we go about telling Jews to forsake the Torah, when the same prophet foretold that the promised regathering would come at the time that they keep Torah (Deuteronomy 30:1-8)? Or we say, despite what Paul says about being neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28), that the Torah is really for the Jews? They do have to keep "empty" rituals and regulations while we the "favored" gentiles walk without His Torah?

The point is that Yeshua meant what He said. Moses may be at times hard to understand, especially as Yeshua understood him, but we cannot pick and choose through Moses's words, and yet fully follow Messiah. Messiah is not at war with Moses, neither should His church be.

And was the church at war back then? We have seen that Yeshua is consistent with Moses and the Tanakh, what about his disciples? Did they receive some sudden revelation to the contrary? We will see.

##  The Apostles

In this portion, we will look at Acts and the final, non-Pauline books. I am skipping over Paul, for the moment, to put the book-ends around him to give him context. We will easily see the preponderance of the apostolic writings is consistent with the preponderance of the Bible in general, agreeing that God's Torah is good, and right, and will be magnified.

### Acts or Axe?

At this point, I might repeat the whole discourse from when we left the Tanakh and moved into the writings of the Apostles. But I will summarize. There was nothing anti-Torah or suggesting the fading of Torah in the Tanakh. The explicit prophecies said Torah would be magnified. And God's people went through centuries of oppression because they did not keep Torah. It makes no sense to go into the New Testament "primed" to kick Torah to the curb. And when you are not looking for it to be so, then you find the Gospels are actually pro-Torah as you should have expected.

Sure there will be some objections with an address in the Gospels, the washing of hands, the woman caught in adultery, healing on the Sabbath—and we will deal with those—but against those you have Yeshua's explicit stand that He was to fill up the Torah, His habit of keeping all the feasts, showing up at the Temple, basing His doctrine on the Torah, and of course the witness of the entire Tanakh that the Messiah would magnify Torah . . . For myself, I have no problem summarizing Yeshua's life-ministry as pro-Torah.

So going into the Acts, do we _expect_ his disciples to do the same, or do we _expect_ them to do something completely opposite? Let me remind you that the writer of Acts is also the writer of Luke. The writer, Luke, wrote more of the New Testament than any other author including Paul. Close to 30% of the New Testament came through his pen. His is also the most intensive historical accounting of all the apostolic writers; so if we are looking to get a wide-angle picture of the Church, Luke rather than Paul is our go-to man. Not only that, Luke was a continuing reporter on Paul himself.

Acts begins in a most interesting way. The very setting is suggestive of our topic. When Yeshua was crucified it was Passover—coincidence? When He rose again it was the day of First Fruits—double coincidence? Yeshua then appears to His disciples for forty days (Acts 1:3), then He says wait for the promise or pledge. Well, from the time of First Fruits, the Torah tells us to count seven Sabbaths to the day after that the seventh Sabbath (Leviticus 23:15-16); do the math that is fifty days, from which the modern church gets the word Pentecost. So Yeshua leaves ten days till Pentecost, then the disciples receive the Holy Spirit on that day, which is more correctly called Shavuot (weeks).

Shavuot is more correct because it is seven weeks plus one day that are commanded to be counted, not just fifty days. That may seem unimportant until you dig a little bit and find out that Seven is the number of an oath, as in the seven sheep at Beersheva (the well of the oath, Genesis 21:31). Shavuot is a feast of Seven Sevens, so you could say it is God saying to us, "I seven seven myself" or "I swear I have sworn" or "I double swear!" This is the day on which the disciples receive the pledge, the Holy Spirit. I would also point out that Biblically-founded tradition (not explicit, but the Bible puts you in the ballpark) points to the Noahide and Mosaic Covenants being enacted on Shavuot, and here we have the pledge of the New Covenant on Shavuot. I would suggest to you the possibility that all of God's covenants begin on Shavuot.

Now is that a triple coincidence or does this suggest that for some reason God at least still finds the Torah pattern worth fulfilling even after Yeshua's death, burial, and resurrection? If God no longer cared about His Instruction, why do this on a ritually important day if you were in fact no longer pleased with the ritual? Or is it that Paul was right in Colossians 2:17 when he said the Holy Days are ( _present tense_ , after Yeshua had ascended and the Holy Spirit had been poured out) shadows of things to come ( _future tense_ )?

For that matter, why are the disciples to stay in Jerusalem? And why are they choosing to be at the Temple? How do we know they are at the Temple? Because what other place could fit three thousand people, and where would three thousand devout men be on the day of Shavuot? The Temple. So why are these disciples at the Temple? The answer is simple, they believe in keeping Torah and their Master never told them to do otherwise.

Not only at Shavuot, but through the book of Acts, the disciples continue to go back to the Temple. Some will say this is because that is where potential converts would be. That is odd. Are we saying that this burdensome place of empty ritual was actually preparing people for the Messiah? Further it assumes the opposite of the Tanakh and Yeshua's teachings. Not only that, but in the Acts 10 scene with the sheet and in Galatians where Paul is talking about Peter being hypocritical, in both cases Peter _seems_ to be falling back to Judaism not away from it. We will clear up both of those instances later, but the point is that the natural bend of the disciples is loyalty toward their Hebraic roots not abandonment from them. The evidence so far is that they actually chose to be at the Temple because it was the place to be, not because it was a "target rich environment". (Though it is that also, _if_ your Messiah is the Torah-magnifying Messiah and not an anti-Torah messiah.)

Pay attention to the accusations that are made in this narrative and the progression of them. In Acts 4, the disciples preach and are reproved, not that they should stop teaching against Torah, but that they should not speak in the name of Yeshua. Later chapter five ends with them continuing to teach _in the Temple_ daily and chapter six opens with the fact that the wisdom and spirit of the disciples, Stephen in particular, could not be resisted. So what did their opponents do? Chapter six says they "suborned" or slipped in men stealthily, by them they stirred up the people. Then they took them to the council and set up _false_ witnesses.

Now, think about this. Acts is really a very supportive book for our case, it could hardly be stronger. A _false_ witness is by definition someone witnessing what is _not_ true. What did they witness? That Stephen spoke blasphemy against God, against the Holy Place, against the Torah, that Yeshua was a destroyer, and that Yeshua would change the customs given by Moses. It is important to realize that the orthodox Jews of this time considered the tradition of the Elders to be Oral Law descended from Moses at Sinai. So in their minds "customs" could also include traditions that they held sacred, but it would certainly encompass what Moses actually gave, and in either case _these are false witnesses_. They are _lying_. In other words, Stephen did not blaspheme the Temple or the Torah.

### The Revealing Case of Simon, Peter, and Cornelius

This case could have easily fit also into "Objections", but it is too perfect right where it falls. In Acts 10 is the familiar story of the sheet coming down to Peter on a rooftop, and Peter is told that we, Christians, are free to eat pork chops and rabbit.

At least, that is the way it has been told to me and, if you have been around a year or two, it should be familiar to you also.

Again, _backwards_ is the perfect way to describe this thinking. The story of Acts 10, oddly enough, begins in Acts 9. Peter is staying in Joppa with a tanner named Simon. The scripture supplies that Simon was a tanner for a reason. Though there are kosher ways to tan, the primary practice of tanning especially back then involved animal dung and urine, and since even human dung is unclean (Deuteronomy 23:13) the tanner would often be rendered unclean. This would not be a Torah violating problem (as a matter of human life, we are rendered unclean from time to time without breaking any commandment), especially if you were not in a position to go to the Temple. But neither is it a state you want to remain in. After all, just because your dishes will get dirty again doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep them clean. Simon could have been clean and tanning in a way that left him clean, but more traditional Jews may have steered clear of him for the same reason an orthodox Jew will not touch a strange woman—they may be unclean.

So it is important to put a flag on the fact that Peter is staying with a man who would almost habitually be, or traditionally be assumed to be, unclean. However, this man Simon was a Jew. At least, that is what I infer. The reason for that inference is that a gentile, like a strange woman, was assumed to be in a state of uncleanness. In fact many went as far as to consider them unclean simply because they were of a heathen nation. It was not uncommon to speak of gentiles as dogs. Yeshua himself acknowledged this euphemism when he told the Phoenician woman that it was not fit to cast the children's food to the dogs (Matthew 15:26-27, Mark 7:27-28) . In this view one did not even enter the residence of a gentile; recall that the Jews waited outside of Pilate's judgment hall because they did not want to be unclean for the Passover (John 18:28). The contrast is about to come because Peter is staying with a Jew who is actually likely to be unclean but, as we will see, he is not yet willing to stay with a non-Jew who is likely clean.

Acts 10 introduces Cornelius as a God-fearer. Being devout means he is a keeper of Torah along with his house, which is why he has the good relationship with the Jews already (verse 22). Cornelius is told to send men; he sends _three_. The next day, Peter is hungry waiting for his next meal when he falls into a trance. The sheet comes down with apparently unclean animals because יהוה tells him slay and eat, and Peter refuses.

Does something seem odd about that?

After all the unrecorded sermons that Peter got from Yeshua about the dissolution of Torah, you would think that Peter would jump at the chance to eat something new? I mean, after all, it was the consistent message of Yeshua that the Torah was past its "best if used by" date. Of course, I make a joke. Peter, one of Yeshua's closest disciples, acts as if he has never heard of this idea that most of the church now takes for granted.

This sheet comes down _three_ times, and so apparently Peter _three_ times refuses to eat unclean animals. After the vision, 10:17, Peter _doubts_ what the vision should mean. Why is he in doubt? Again, the obvious answer is that he never got the memo about the Torah going away, and he is living in a manner consistent with Torah. He does not believe Torah is going away and that is because Yeshua _never_ taught it. Finally, the Spirit spells it out because Cornelius's men have arrived. 10:19, "Behold, _three_ men seek thee." The emphasis was mine. Are you seeing what I see? Three sheets of unclean food, three gentile men?

Here is where this case shuts in a way that is frustrating. Remember earlier, I said how I was taught the Bible like a fragment soup? Only the preacher could tell you how one passage related to another? Peter is about to give the interpretation of the vision, and yet when people bring up Acts 10 they never bring up _Peter's own interpretation_. The story ends with the sheet going back up into Heaven as far as many are concerned. It is this method of dividing the scriptures into these little fragments that allows anyone to come up with any interpretation they like. It was probably even worse when the layman could not read the scriptures for themselves so the elite could build any self-gratifying doctrine they desired, but the practice is alive today. We must learn to see the scriptures as a single message from a single God.

In Acts 10:28, after going with the three gentiles, Peter is greeted by other believers, and he recounts what happened to him. He says they know how it is unlawful for a Jew to keep company with a gentile. That is what we discussed earlier, but for your knowledge when he says lawful—here he refers to traditional or oral law because the Torah does not make it unlawful to keep company with a gentile but tradition does. Remember, tradition held as binding was the "heavy burden" that Yeshua was also fighting. Peter then says " . . . but God hath showed me that I should call _no man common or unclean_." In the next chapter, Peter is talking to some circumcised believers, explaining why he kept company with a Gentile, and he gives the vision to them correlating three sheets with three men.

Do you see why this is frustrating? The passage is clearly contrasting Simon, a Jew who is probably unclean that Peter will keep company with, to Cornelius, a gentile who is probably not unclean that Peter would not have kept company with. And the lesson Peter learns from the vision is not to call a man common or unclean. Without willfully parsing scripture into fragments for your own agenda, how can you make the case that this passage is about making un-kosher food kosher?

This reveals what we will discuss more in "Objections". This is not a doctrinal or academic issue. By now, with the entire Tanakh, the Gospels, and half of Acts behind us, you should be asking, "How is it that we do _not_ keep Torah? Where _did_ this doctrine of not keeping Torah come from?"

It is not from a unified view of scripture, it came from the division of scripture. Someone purposed to separate scripture from the unity that makes sense of it. This is the basis for all heresy which I have ever encountered. You take one passage that supports a doctrine that appeals to you then you parse it from its surroundings. Why are Baptists separate from Pentecostals? Lutherans from Catholics? Church of Christ from the Community Church on the corner? It is not because of what they hold in common (the scriptures); it is because of what they hold separately (the word of man). Private interpretation. This is not a call for all of us to come to agreement where we do not agree, but it is a diagnosis that what separates us is when we add to or subtract from the Word of God by our word. The first failure in the face of temptation came when someone added to the word of God and called it His (" . . . nor shalt thou touch it," said Eve).

Besides the obvious benefits of keeping Torah, there is one of Spiritual Warfare. The Adversary does not want us to see scripture as the single work of יהוה, who is one. He wants us to see an Old and a New Testament division. The more ways he can separate God's Word from us, the weaker we will be.

How else can you explain what is done with Acts 10 to make it say what it does not?

### The Letter from the Apostles

It is not long after God's reaching out to the gentiles in Acts 10, that the assembly has a larger issue to judge. Assembly or Congregation is a better word than church because, if you examine the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Tanakh), the word for church is only "new" in its translation in the "New Testament"; the same word appears throughout the Tanakh before the "church" was "born" in Acts 2. Again, this points to one God, one story. The church has always existed so either call the Congregation in the Tanakh the "Church", or call the Church in the New Testament the "Congregation". The only reason to be _knowingly inconsistent_ is to insert a distinction where one does not exist.

Continuing in God's story, we find in Acts 15 this larger issue on the heels of the good news that the gentiles are coming to God as foretold. There is that signal and execution again. Verse one gives us the issue. Can you be saved without being circumcised in the manner of Moses? Well, was the Torah for justification? We saw way back in the beginning a resounding, "No!" _From the beginning_ that was never the purpose of the Torah. For that matter as Paul will point out in Romans and Galatians Abraham's reckoning of righteousness came before his circumcision.

So it is clear what the Apostles should say. However, there is another nuance to be understood here. When some Jews talk about circumcision, they are not necessarily talking about Torah but again of oral tradition. Notice, "in the manner of Moses"? In the Torah does it tell how to circumcise? No, it does not. It simply says do it. Sure, it uses words defined as cutting short the foreskin of the penis, but it does not say what tools, what blessings, or what time of day to do it. All of which are prescribed and change from time to time with so-called oral law. Some parts seem biblical and then expand into extra-biblical and again become binding, and I might add the teachings on the subject after Yeshua seem to be heavily works based. Maimonides for example taught in _Guide for the Perplexed_ that the removing of the foreskin (which involves a second depth of cutting, called _peri'ah_ , beyond the _milah_ literally called for in scripture1) was not to perfect the body but to perfect moral shortcomings, to give moral control over one's flesh2. In other words, sanctification can be partially achieved by cutting away skin.

For myself, I believe that the plain reading, _milah_ , lends itself to a "cutting short" or "curtailing" of the foreskin, rather than a removal. This form could be done competently by a trained father for his own son. Or in the case of Zipporah done in an expedient manner while traveling through the desert (Exodus 4:25); snipping off the tip of the foreskin would not only be distinctive from the natural, it would also be distinctive from the traditions which some suggest have arisen since the time of Yeshua; and it is something that could be done safely with some training without the aid of hospital facilities. Though, a reputable mohel can perform the traditional cut outside of a hospital as well.

So not only are these Judean brothers wrong for linking salvation with circumcision, but they are specifically linking it with a tradition understanding of circumcision. It would be the equivalent of someone saying you cannot be saved without being baptized; or more specifically baptized in the manner of a face-forward dunk verses a backward dunk or sprinkling.

Now, many people, including my fellow Messianic believers, will take issue with what I will say, because yes, I do believe that every male should be circumcised. There are many different interpretations and doctrines one way or another, but the fact is the covenant with Abraham prescribed it and that is the covenant of the father of all who walk by faith. Rather than Abraham's faith negating His responsibility to be circumcised, his faith was the context into which the command was given. On top of that, the Torah does say _to do it_ if you want to keep the Passover (Exodus 12:48). It is a command the same as any other.

But as you will see, at the same time I am _not_ saying an uncircumcised male should be _compelled_ to run out and get circumcised.

Our new protagonist Paul, and Barnabas, head to Jerusalem to have this question answered. This is interesting because the way people teach now, Paul—not the Apostles in Jerusalem—was the leadership of the Congregation. Paul and Barnabas relate what happened and dive into the question. In 15:5, we see the question more fully clarified, was it "needful to circumcise them, _and_ to command to keep the Torah of Moses"? If circumcision is of Torah, then wouldn't the latter include the former? And notice who the proposed doer of the act is? Circumcision as proposed here is an act to do _upon_ them not an act for them to undertake or allow. It is an act of compulsion upon the gentiles being discussed.

This is why understanding scripture as one story by one God is so important. When looking in too closely, without the larger plot in mind, we lose track of the significance of the different scenes. For example, what is so astounding about the character of Peter as a head Apostle if you neglect to mention that he denied his Messiah three times? The story is everything. So what overview of the story are we missing?

Did God sit Abraham down and tell him the whole Torah and hold him accountable after one sitting while he was living in the pagan land of his pagan fathers? As far as we know, Moses is the only one who was given the full Torah. As we said earlier Noah knew at least enough to know what a clean animal was; and Abraham was a herder of clean, kosher animals, and both offered sacrifices, so at least that much was known. Apparently laws of incest were not given immediately to Adam and Eve (how else could the human race grow?), and Abraham was not practicing this principle at the time he married his half-sister. So you can see that some things were being given and others withheld for God's own reasons. Perhaps things like incest did not matter until there was a certain amount of genetic damage already present? Perhaps it was also commanded to keep from losing more diverse traits?

Also, there is a lineage being developed. Abraham lived among pagans (Laban was family), but God brought him out. Suddenly, he was a nomad alone with God. And God taught him until eventually He said that Abraham kept His Torah. God foretold that Abraham would command his seed after him to walk in the way, so when we find Israel leaving Egypt they are already primed for Torah.

God then separates out the entire nation _from_ the pagans around them, takes them into the wilderness and gives them the Torah. See, it was not one person being told against the whole world to keep Torah. God knows human frailty. The way people talk about how Torah was taught and executed, God seems like a jerk, but He is compassionate, loving, slow to anger, abundant in truth. He planted a seed in the father of a nation, cultivated that seed, and then gave the full growth in a garden prepared to produce fruit. The children said, "Yes, we will do that." Not inorganic, but organic. Not forced upon them, but received by them. Not coerced, cultivated.

So when we get to Acts, does it seem like God would have his disciples compel the gentiles who have been without Torah for generations—hundreds or thousands of years—that they need today, _right now_ , to be keeping every commandment while living in their pagan cultures? Of course not. That truly would be a yoke that "neither our fathers nor we are able to bear" (let alone the tradition of oral law being called for by some of the dissenters). There are plenty of people in scripture who are described as faithful and keepers of Torah. Even in the New Testament, Joseph was just; Zacharias and Elisabeth were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments, blameless (Luke 1:6). So apparently God did consider some people to have been faithfully keeping His commands _even though_ they were still sinners. How then could this already attained standard be a yoke which could not be born?

What do the Apostles say?

In Acts 15:7-18, the Apostles lay out that God has given repentance to the gentiles, and purified them by faith the _same_ as the Jews. Notice their response is toward the issue of salvation, not towards the issue of lifestyle or obedience. The question could just as easily have been, "Must they keep communion to be saved?" The answer is no, but that does not address the issue of whether they _are_ responsible to perform it. The list of things that do not determine salvation is long—it includes not committing adultery, not murdering, not stealing—and yet I have yet to meet the Christian who says that we are "free" to engage in such practices simply because it does not determine salvation. Yet, they will make the same argument as a reason not to keep Torah. And is that the conclusion the Apostles reach?

In 15:19-20 James is giving a list of things that they are to do. Not because it is a matter of salvation, but because it is right, and on this list are _all things to be found in Torah._ Why do that? If the goal is abolishment of Torah, a world without Torah, why list even four things? Don't they remember what Yeshua taught in those sermons that were not recorded about getting rid of Torah?

Further to the point, why _these_ four things? Pollutions of idols and fornication, most Christians would agree we should avoid . . . which is another ironic contradiction. Most Christians I have met have a patchwork view of Torah. Have you met a Christian who says that we are free from the law, and does not tell their children, "Children are to obey their father and mother"? If you say law, they shrink back from it, and yet at the same time they insist on some of the commands that seem of personal value to them. And that patchwork follows the purely human idea (you will not find this anywhere in scripture) of a division in Torah that separates moral, ceremonial, and judicial. There it is again, parsing the Word.

As this division is a human idea, it does not take long to find the seams. If only the moral component is valid, then should not Christians be entirely against the judicial decrees of their own countries? If there is no valid judgment on who is to be imprisoned or otherwise punished, should not Christians advocate a complete abolishment of judicial practice in this life? Most Christians teach adultery is sin, yet adultery is dealt with in the context of the _judgments_ , which by their nature are "judicial", and in some cases adultery would be dealt with through the priesthood, which would presumably make the issue "ceremonial", so where exactly do you glean the "moral" law? Which part do you decide is the "moral" component so that you can decide the rest may be discarded? For that matter, what makes fornication a moral issue, more than resting on the Sabbath day? Or eating a kosher diet? The kosher diet had no judicial repercussions and no requirement for ritual in the Temple, so why is that not moral? It doesn't go into the heart they say! And sexual intercourse does?

Some will argue the moral component is what is repeated in the New Testament (again, a doctrine that is pulled out of the ether having no basis in the scriptures, which continually claims its authority from the Tanakh). This idea is never explicitly stated. It is claimed by inference from silence, but if it is true, the conclusion must be that charging interest of the poor or of spiritual kin is not a moral issue. Slaver ownership is a moral right (Philemon), but the requirements of when to release a slave is amoral. Incest with your father's wife is a moral issue (1 Corinthians 5:1), but incest with your daughter is not. Eating animals that have been strangled to death or eating their blood is moral (Acts 15:20), but which animals you eat or if they died of natural causes before you got to them is not moral.

Even if we accept the claim that it is the moral component that is to be kept and the ritual or practical parts are empty, is our practice a contradiction? How is it that Sunday worship, communion, and baptism are not the same? Somehow, these rituals allegedly instituted by the same God are meaningful and imperative, while His "old, Jewish, stuff" is not.

See the contradictions? Their existence is perplexing, yet their makings are immensely helpful to our discussion. Even in rejecting God's Torah as a whole, we search for something to replace it. We have a hunger for God's instruction that cannot simply be left void. It must be filled. If the Spirit was meant to be enough, why did Yeshua teach? The Spirit should pull the puppet strings and make every Christian do right, so why preach? Why send Apostles, prophets, and teachers? The only people who can receive those spiritual messages are those with the Spirit and therefore are people who should not need them. We have come to imagine a _Matrix_ -like God who simply flips switches, downloads information, and only cares about the content between your ears. That is a very Greek and Far Eastern concept, not a Biblical one.

From the beginning _before_ Torah, God had respect for ritual (Cain and Abel ring a bell?). God who could do anything did not choose to simply flick a switch and make everything right. Instead He took what in contrast seems a detouring, meandering, arduous process to reconcile Himself and man. I have a theory about that, but in the end it is simply God's choice and I will not argue with a choice that used and still uses ritual. It was a choice where physical actions and not mental ones only had consequences and meaning. It matters who you sleep with because God made a Man that was a Soul-operated, Spirit-connected, body of Flesh. That was _His_ design, not ours. He saw value in that tri-unity. That tri-unity was God's image, and when Salvation is complete it will include restoration of all three parts.

The Greeks and the Far Easterners see the body as a prison, a living purgatory from which we are to be freed, and that has crept into congregational doctrine and poisoned the most obvious truth that the physical creation is a source of joy to both God and Man. God's promises are of a restored Earth, on which holy people will live and enjoy physical pleasures. The dilemma is not one element over the other; God wants all three parts to be unified again as they were in the beginning. Why do you think re-demption, re-generation, re-creation, are such common themes? God is not abandoning a sinking ship and trying to get His people out; He is working to fix the leak permanently.

So the point is body, soul, and Spirit are designed to be one being. Once understood, of course your physical actions affect your Spirit. Why else is drunkenness and drug-use an issue? Because they _do_ have an affect on your spiritual well-being. And the reverse is also true. We have studies that people who pray often and live by faith, even if not knowing God, live healthier and longer than atheists and the unreligious. We know that when in our Soul and Spirit we are depressed, our body takes the punishment. We know that promiscuity leads to disease and other burdens in the flesh. God made a tri-une being and He has a better way, a good way, for us to live as such.

And people know this. Those who claim to live without His Instruction, simply choose another instruction. The only issue is whether we choose to follow the Torah of our sinful desires? The World's Torah of Self? Our Church's Torah of Tradition? That is why you will never meet a Christian who consciously chooses to be a Christian who does not also have an opinion about how you should live. They have it because there is a void of how to live, a void that is supposed to be filled with God's Instruction.

Back now in Acts, this is something the Apostles understand. Because after listing those specific, fleshly and moral imperatives—from the very Heart of the Torah—they make what is otherwise an odd statement. Verse twenty-one, "For Moses . . . hath them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every _Sabbath_ day." Follow the reasoning; "My sentence is that we shouldn't trouble them, but tell them to abstain from these four things, because Moses is preached every Sabbath." The clear implication, the assumption, is that the Gentiles _are_ attending synagogues on the Sabbath and _learning_ Moses.

God never required the forefathers one-against-the-world to take on a huge transition overnight. God is compassionate, slowly leading His children into a better way. You do not teach your toddler how to speak, read, and act properly in one day. Neither does יהוה. So the Apostles say, here, do these four things. They are not too hard, but they are only the starting framework. As you regularly attend on the Sabbath you will learn the rest. And why wouldn't you? You love God's Messiah, why wouldn't you love His Instruction?

As can be seen, the Apostles in the first big clash uphold Faith (what Yeshua called a weighty matter of Torah) and the Torah. Confirming not only that our righteousness is an act of God (as the Torah says), but also that righteousness is to be lived (as the Torah says).

And for the thousandth time, this is consistent with everything that has come before not flying in the face of it.

### The Apostles: Inspired Men of God? Or Big Fat Hypocrites?

What follows is a dilemma for those who teach against Torah. As we have seen, the Apostles, as their Messiah did, have fallen repeatedly upon the validity of Torah. When put to the test they advocate for it, not against it. Yet, most modern Christians believe the opposite. They teach what just happened was a victory for liberty, that the Apostles just backhanded Moses in a surprise decision. Yet, you begin to run into problems having done so. The first was, why those four things in Acts 15:20? It seems like a failure to leave even one part standing. What could possibly have been the motivation if they actually reject the imperative quality of Torah? Were they worried about driving away the Pharisaic sect within Christianity? They could not have been worried about the Priests and Elders who were already persecuting them, so were they worried about their own power base? Or were they just deceived?

That is only the beginning of our problems, and again these problems become apparent when you see the Bible as one book with one Author. It is only by fragmenting scripture and parsing passages that rogue doctrines are able to hide and survive.

In Acts 16:1-3, we have Paul—fresh off his supposed victory over Torah and circumcision—turning around and explicitly _because of the Jews_ circumcising Timotheus. This makes sense in a Torah observant perspective because He wanted to show the other Jews that the followers of the Way were not teaching against Torah—no doubt, Timotheus was on board with the act, turning the significance of the act from a show into a testimony. But if you believe Torah was defeated, then the only reason Timotheus is _subjected_ to this ritual is to go along with a Jewish tradition, which Paul traveled to Jerusalem in order to defeat and now has the letter with the verdict. The fact that he traveled, should not be glossed over. Paul did not hop a puddle jumper and make a day trip to answer the question. You did not travel great distances in those days, lightly. No matter how you look at it, Paul is acting contrary to the very thing he was fighting against and had victory over, and for what reason? Fear of men.

Ladies and gentlemen of Messiah, allow me to introduce Paul, the big stinking coward.

Or, maybe he did it because he and Timotheus both knew it was right, and having cleared up that it was _not_ a salvation issue, they did it as a testimony that they were not against God's Instruction.

In Acts 18:21, Paul says he must keep the feast at Jerusalem, apparently Shavuot (feast of weeks, which comes after Passover and First Fruits). One might argue that he is just trying to make it to a ministry opportunity, but that is not the tenor of the words. He did not say "I must be there during the feast." He says "I must _keep_ this feast . . . " Those are the words of a Torah minded person. Later on, in Acts 20, the writer Luke, marks the passing of the feast of Unleavened Bread. Afterward, he begins to mark their journey in terms of days. This is just a side note, but he did not do that before or after in such a precise way. It is almost as if he is _counting_ the passing days . . . which again, would have been a practice of Torah since they are heading to the feast that is determined by the counting (Leviticus 23:15).

Finally, Paul gets to Jerusalem and meets with other Apostles. 21:18 tells us that the Apostle James and _all_ the elders of Yeshua's Congregation were present. This is the apostolic leadership of the Congregation (the church). 21:18-20 has this group pointing out to Paul how there are thousands of Jews that believe and are zealous of the Torah. They say that these Jews have heard that Paul is preaching that they should forsake Moses, not circumcise their children, and not keep customs. In 21:21-24, they ask him to purify himself with some Nazarites (which requires an animal sacrifice, by the way, Numbers 6:13-16), for the express purpose of showing that the charges are _false_ and that Paul _does_ keep the Torah.

Apparently, it is not a church gathering, but a convention of stinking hypocrites!

Here you have the leadership of the Church from Jerusalem all the way to beloved Paul enacting a conspiracy in order to deceive the congregation into thinking that Paul really is not teaching what Paul _really is_ teaching. These are the Apostles? These are the men of faith who had done miracles? Wrote inspired books? Were persecuted to the point of death as martyrs? These scheming political manipulators?

I am not saying the Apostles were perfect by any stretch, but there is another interpretation. In keeping the Gentiles from a man-made imperative to learn and keep the whole Torah (and oral Torah) in order to be saved, the adversaries had twisted it—ironically, _exactly the same as the mainstream church teaches this very day_ —to say that Paul was saying not to keep Torah. Remember that, let that sink in. The accusation which the Congregational leadership is _rejecting_ is that Paul taught to forsake Moses. The very doctrine, which the church today holds up as the real glory of Christianity, is what the congregation from James to Paul is _denouncing_. Keep this in mind, when we actually talk about Paul's writings.

And this _false_ accusation is something that the elders of the body of Messiah want to stamp out by having Paul go through a ritual of Torah as a testimony that the claim is indeed false. By contrast then, they are saying that you should _not_ forsake Torah. Keep in mind that Paul is only an issue because the rumor has it that Paul is _out of step_ with the other Apostles. Would there be an issue if James and the others were themselves teaching against Torah? How did they even collect this large group of Torah zealous believers? Why are there no substantiated rumors that James and John and Peter are teaching to forsake Torah?

It is this misbegotten anomalous rumor about Paul that is being addressed.

Take your pick, which view seems right? The leadership is inconsistent with all the Tanakh and the teaching of Yeshua, and they are afraid of men, and deceivers . . . and poor deceivers at that because they do not mind having Luke standing over their shoulder recording the minutes of their subversive activity. . . or they are upholding both, and warding off a false doctrine.

In 24:14, after Paul is on his way to Caesar, he explicitly states that he believes all that is written in the Torah and prophets. In 25:7-8, before Festus the unbelievers again accuse Paul with accusations they cannot prove, which indicates no one has actually seen Paul do any of the anti-Torah things that he is reported to have done. And Paul for himself says he has not offended against the Torah, the Temple, or even Rome.

Acts closes with Paul still affirming he believes Torah. Still affirming that he has not broken Torah and still believes in Messiah Yeshua. He and the other Apostles see no contradiction between living Torah and _the_ Living Torah. They take active steps to denounce this very doctrine of the forsaking. And all the while, it is recorded that their adversaries _falsely_ accuse them of such.

Again, only by willful agenda—redefining words to mean what they never meant, assuming ulterior motives and agreeing with the accusers of the brethren—only then can we reach the conclusion that is now the default doctrine taught in most churches. This is not the Christianity of the Apostles and Congregation of Acts; it is not the teaching of Yeshua; it is the instruction of someone who wants nothing more than to fragment the scriptures and sweep it into the dustpan of history.

##  The Other Bookend of the New Testament

As I said before, Paul will be addressed in the section on "Objections", so for the moment we will skip over his epistles to the other side. What is the value in that? Doesn't that violate the flow of consistency? Make fragments out of the story?

The first reason is that if the first 67% of the Bible agrees that Torah is good, right, and relevant and the last 12% agrees with that, then it becomes all the more clear that if the remaining 21% by a single author does not appear to agree, then either the reader's perspective or the author's writing is suspect.

So let us see what the other writers have left to say about the Torah.

### James

When last we saw him, James was being either a huge conniver or a sincere upholder of Torah.

In chapter one, James admonishes the twelve tribes which were scattered not to be hearers only of the word but doers. He then says in 1:25, the one who looks into the complete Torah of liberty shall be blessed in his deed. I could not help thinking that it was the Psalms that said the Torah is "perfect" (Psalm 19:7). Was it not the Torah that declared freedom for those in bondage every fifty years (Leviticus 25:10)? Was it not the Torah that told not to hold grudges and to not oppress either your neighbor or even the stranger (Leviticus 19:18)? The Torah is full of liberty, so both of James's adjectives fit with Torah not against it.

As I have tried to state before, it is important not to make up new definitions for words simply for our convenience. There have been instances where we could show from the text that words like "lawful" included oral tradition based upon who was using it. But in modern Christian tradition, this "law" is made out to be the commands of Yeshua given in the writings of The Apostles, omitting His own Torah given by His other Sent One, Moses. Have we seen anything that suggests this? No. And in fact it is again a contradiction—how can you claim Yeshua "freed" us from the Torah while turning around and imposing another Torah from the same person? And even if you were to accept the idea, this new torah also carries with it the weight of responsibility. Does anyone look at the torah spoken of by James and say there is a conflict between that and grace? Is there anyone who looks at that and says that because we are saved it is abolished? Is there anyone who says that _those_ ordinances were nailed to the cross? As said before, we are not without Torah we simply choose another one. Our fear of legalism only applies to commandments we do not like. Our arguments for grace and against any letter of rule never apply to rules from Yeshua, Paul, James, or any of our other New Testament writers, only to Moses.

In James 2, the writer gets into the practical. If we see but do not alleviate the physical needs of a poor brother, then it is the Torah that James says we have failed because love thy neighbor is Torah, Leviticus 19:18. In fact, he accuses us on the basis of Torah of being judges with evil thoughts because of partiality. That fits with Leviticus 19:15, which commands impartiality in judgment. And for that matter, isn't it the Torah that says to have mercy (another of those weightier matters, Matthew 23:23) on the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-11)? He is not saying do not do the Torah, but do it with a heart of mercy not of partiality. The Torah tells us that with the poor we should charge no interest; not pervert their justice (though not unjustly take their side either); feed them freely from the fruit of our land every seven years and allow them to glean from our fields in the between years; help him in his needs; if he falls into our employ, rule over him without harshness; give him of our tithes; open wide our hand to him. All those things are loving-kindness, graciousness is a teaching of the Torah. How can we keep Torah without grace? We cannot. James says the unmerciful will be judged the same as one who committed adultery (2:13). They are both guilty of sin.

In James 4:11, James makes an appeal to not slander. When we do, we slander the Torah. Is that because it is Moses that told us man was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)? James 3:9 might suggest that link.

James makes a case for treating people with impartiality and not slandering each other; for remembering the poor, widows, and orphans; all of which is found in Torah and which James speaks well of. The closest he comes to saying something against Torah is in fact not that we should not do it, but that with mercy we _should_ _do it_ because we will be judged by it, as we judge. Instead of condemning Torah, he argues that it is wrong to condemn the Torah, and that pure religion is found in it.

### Peter

Peter has such a fascinating story. In fact, it was looking at the life of Peter that God used to reveal to me this idea of scripture having become a "fragment soup". Have you ever read 1 Peter with the thought in the back of your mind, that this was the guy who cut off a priest's servant's ear? Who denied Messiah? The one who is always sticking his foot in his mouth? And yet also the guy who ran right into the empty tomb while John stayed outside? What a change God made in his life! Fisherman to pillar of the Congregation. I am grateful to יהוה for the life of Peter. We needed to know about Peter.

What does he have to say about Torah? Well, actually, Peter has nothing explicit to say about the Torah. Just because the Torah is the foundation on which every other doctrine must stand does not mean it has to be the focus in name. This is not a book about how the Torah must be your every waking concern. The point of this book is simply that God loved us and gave us a way to live, and we hurt ourselves and weaken our faith by removing it.

Yet, there are many equally important topics; wisdom for one, the unfailing mettle of God's promises; the beauty of creation and the proclamation of God's grace through it. Song of Solomon does not even mention God and it is a very worthy book, and I would argue perhaps one of the most important, and it is primarily about love and affection (yes, sexual—wonderful glorious, holy, sexual—affection).

But Peter does say things that touch on how he viewed Torah. In 1 Peter 1:15-16, Peter says that the reason for holiness is יהוה's holiness, an idea we should recognize from earlier. In chapter two, the talk of a peculiar people and priesthood is an echo of what was told to Moses by יהוה (Exodus 19:5-6).

1 Peter 3:1 talks about the much-misused and also much-neglected concept of wives being in subjection to their husbands. I have met many Christians who say we are not obligated to keep the law, and yet as they tell their children to obey them based on it, they also believe in wives submitting to their husbands. And where does this submission doctrine come from? Yeshua did not mention it, neither did the Apostles in Acts. Is Peter just making up a new doctrine? No, it is found in the Torah and Peter reminds them in verses five through six. He is referencing Torah for authority. The seed of his doctrine shows respect to the teachings of Moses.

2 Peter also is full of echoed Torah. He is against covetousness (Exodus 20:17) and for charity (Deuteronomy 15:11). He is against speaking evil of authority (Exodus 22:28); against adultery (Exodus 20:14); against beguiling (Deuteronomy 13:6); all according to Torah. And ironically, 2:19 says that the unrighteous do all these things "while promising them liberty". Look at the sin rampant in the church! Pastors sleeping with secretaries; abuse of children; misuse of tithe money; preaching a gospel of wealth, all coming from the soil that says we are "under grace". There is a true use for that phrase, but too many teach a grace that is opposite of God's Instruction. As a result, it should not surprise that all the things Torah condemns begin to pop up like weeds. In 3:5, Peter rebukes those who are willingly ignorant—ignorant of what? How it was recorded in the Torah that the world perished in Noah's day.

One last stop of interest is 3:15-16. Peter says that Paul writes similar things in his epistle to these strangers and pilgrims (synonyms for Hebrews). That implies that what Paul says _does_ match with Peter. He also warns that Paul says many things "hard to be understood" and that the unlearned twist those things to their own destruction. Can you think of any other writer in scripture saying that another writer is often misused? Why is the first writer we go to in order to prove the passing away of Torah, the one guy that is mentioned in scripture as having his letters misused? And again, Peter is saying _he and Paul agree._ What does it say to you that we have to go to Paul to make a case that we cannot seem to easily make through Peter, James, John, or Yeshua?

Peter has a heart of Biblical understanding that leans on the gift of God's Instruction. He does not oppose it, and I think he is especially helpful toward finding a correct perspective on Paul. Peter and Paul are agreeing, and Peter and James agree. And John and James agree. This is one book by one God. If we cannot find an anti-Torah mindset in the other writers, then we are fabricating it in Paul.

### John

1 John is one of my favorite books. I am sure that it contains many memory verses for many people. It holds many of the deeper, almost mystical, truths of scripture such as "God is love". The first chapter is important because it lets us know, as followers of Messiah, that we still sin. We are _reckoned_ without sin, but we do the work of sin. There are actually two promises regarding sins; one is apparently for minor sins (lacks the definite article), possibly sins of ignorance. Our fellowship with Yeshua guarantees cleansing of those sins (1:7). The other is for "the" sins. Tracing back to the Septuagint, the golden calf was such a "the" sin (Exodus 34:9). The sin was to be born away on the Day of Atonement by the goat in the wilderness. יהוה warned that if Israel walked contrary (hostile) toward Him, יהוה would punish them seven times for their "the" sin. The sense that I gather is the idea of walking contrary, especially from the incident with the golden calf and this 34:9 warning. With the golden calf, יהוה said, in 32:8, that they had "turned aside quickly". Literally, they were in a hurry to turn aside. The sin is definitely not minor and definitely not ignorant. If it was, how could we confess it and be cleansed and forgiven? And that is the promise, that God is faithful _and_ just to forgive us of those sins and cleanse us.

This is a good place to address one misconception. Some believe that if we are to follow Torah that we are calling for blood sacrifices as prescribed in the Torah. That is a nuanced discussion to have more fully under "Objections", but for the moment it is enough to say that the Torah does not say that forgiveness came _because of_ animal sacrifice. It merely says that sacrifice was involved in a ritual that guaranteed it—when (only when) conducted with faith. Also, I have argued and will argue later, that the linchpin of the animal sacrifice as part of the process of forgiveness was not the sacrifice, but the _confession_ of faith the same as it is in 1 John.

In 1 John 2:3, the writer says that those who know Messiah keep His commandments. It will continue to clarify, but from what we already know, the Torah _is_ Yeshua's commandments. Even if you were to try parsing it to say that it only includes the commandments Yeshua gave on Earth, recall that in the Sermon on the Mount Yeshua condemned those who teach others to break Torah, and He also told His disciples in Matthew 23 to do as much as the Pharisees told them to do _in the capacity_ of Moses. So His commandments, even if regarded separately, include the Torah.

2:5 is an especially affirming verse, "whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected . . . " This is what I tried to say earlier and many other times. We have been taught to believe that somehow our lives can be made into the image of Messiah by _thinking_ it so. We think the point of communion is an opportunity to _think_ about the blood and body of Messiah. We have been ingrained with the idea that worship is words we say with our mouth. That study is all we need. Yet from the beginning, God gave us bodies and a creation in which to roam. Why did God give communion with an act _and_ a memory? Why isn't it enough to contemplate Yeshua's burial instead of being immersed in water? Why must confession be made with the mouth when God can hear our thoughts?

The simple answer is that we are not meant to live as mental beings. We are body, soul, and spirit. Worship involves all three; obedience involves all three; life involves all three. It makes perfect sense that God gave us ritual in both the Tanakh and writings of the Apostles, because we do not learn only with our minds. Ritual is only empty when our heart is not in it. It is only empty because _our heart_ is missing.

We learn with more than the mind. In fact, I would argue that the child who burns their hand or gets on a bicycle will learn far more quickly and with better understanding not to touch hot objects or how to keep their balance, than mere contemplation will ever yield. It is in the daily trials of this life that we learn to follow God's lead, not in the pews on Sunday. Or even on the Sabbath. Congregating and corporate worship are part of it, but it is not something you can walk with only a part of your person on one day of a week. The life of faith must be in and through every nook and cranny.

So why should it surprise us that John is saying that we must practice the word we receive to have God's love made whole in us? Isn't that what we learned from the Torah in the first place? That doing these things is a testimony that God is sanctifying us? That by doing them we reveal the character of God in us? A commandment is something you put inside; _doing_ a commandment is when that thing is testified to the outside, it is the reflection of the light poured into us. I believe that is exactly what 1 John 2:29 is saying.

Lest there be any doubt what John is talking about, 3:1-4 tells us that if we have the hope in us that we will be sons of God like Yeshua, then we will purify ourselves. Hope fuels action. Then what does he say? What example does he give of this purifying? He says that whoever continues in sin, breaks the Torah. Then as if we could not figure out the plain meaning of his words he adds, " . . . for sin _is_ the transgression of the Torah."

Have you ever heard the phrase, sin is missing the mark? That is true, but the immediate question is "what is the mark?"

"That is when we stumble," we grasp at straw.

"Oh, it's missing holiness."

"It's not doing the best."

"It's not doing God's will."

All those might be true, but they do not define what sin is, or what the mark is. 1 John 3:4 cuts to the quick. It says _exactly_ what sin is. Sin is breaking the Torah. That was why chapter one was important; we still sin. We still break the Torah, and if Yeshua is faithful and just to forgive us our breaking of Torah and cleanse us from all unrighteousness . . . doesn't that suggest that the Torah is still the guideline? Are we trying to give Yeshua more reasons to forgive us? Is that our gratitude? Is that our following His example?

1 John 5:3, tells us what the gospel of John also did; the love of God is to keep His commandments; and then he agrees with every other book of the Bible, "His commandments are not grievous."

John takes it for granted in all three of his epistles that the Torah is the standard of righteousness, either affirming it or not bothering to deny it. The Apostle, whom Yeshua loved, instills in us that the hope of being the Sons of God will drive us to be purified of transgressing, and that in those _doings_ we are perfected. Notice, he does not say "we perfect ourselves", no. We _are_ perfected. We receive the action. He perfects us, which is what the Torah said.

### Revelation

I have skipped over Jude and hardly mentioned 2 & 3rd John because they are very short and do not seem to offer anything particularly noteworthy in the discussion which has not been already said elsewhere. It is not that I am trying to cover every positive reference to the Torah, merely to show that the larger contextual setting is affirming. If that is understood then the anomalies are just that, anomalies.

What does Revelation reveal? Does it agree with the tone of the other books of prophecy?

Not surprisingly, it does. In 12:17 after the dragon is evicted by the war in Heaven, he declares war on the remnant of the seed of the woman. Who is the seed of the woman? They which _keep_ the commandments, _and_ have the testimony of Yeshua.

In yet another exercise of mental gymnastics, some believers have attempted to explain this as being the Jews (since it is assumed the "church" has been raptured), who are now keeping the Torah and are followers of Yeshua. Well, pardon me, but did not Paul say that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28)? Did not Peter and Paul both say that Jews and Gentiles come to be justified by the same means of faith (Acts 15:9, Romans 3:22 & 30)? And isn't it commonly believed that Paul taught that trying to keep the Torah was a slap in the face of Yeshua's grace? How then can you make the argument for a transient time where God is going to be pleased with the Jews for keeping a bunch of rules that He allegedly does not care about and which insult His grace?

On the other hand, if you see no contradiction between grace and Torah, then this is simply a statement of praise for faithfulness. The remnant becomes what God's people were always supposed to have been, keepers of Torah and of the Testimony of Yeshua. Which, I might add would fulfill Deuteronomy 30:1-4, about a regathering accompanying repentance and obedience. Not only that, but that would put rapture passage of 1 Thessalonians 4 into connection with its Tanakh seed. After all, what would more fulfill gathering "from the utmost parts of heaven" more than the actual return of Yeshua and the faithful from all time?

Revelation 14:12 reaffirms this. What kinds of saints are praised in the end times? Those who _keep_ the commandments _and_ the faith of Yeshua. Again, no contradiction and it is a reason for praise. Can you imagine the scriptures saying, "Here are they which burden themselves with empty ritual and have the faith of Yeshua"? Yet, that would be consistent with modern teaching. Not only have we imagined a time in the present where the Torah is abolished without ever having being foretold; we now imagine a time when it will have to be reinstituted having been abolished—but only for the Jews?

Basically, the prevalent doctrine simply states that the Torah does not apply to us. It did in the past and it will in the future, but it doesn't apply to us. That sounds straight up childish.

Now the closing. Perhaps God was thinking of the end of Malachi 4 in which the last words on the subject of Torah are "remember the Torah of Moses", because here at the end of Revelation, 22:14, it is written "Blessed are they that _do_ his commandments . . . "

### 79% of Scripture

All the other books, all the other authors, the beginning and the end (literally and figuratively) agree the Torah is good; and it is here to stay either in ink or engraved on our hearts. Can we look at this objectively and say there is anything that could be said in the remaining fourteen books by a single author that could refute this cloud of witnesses?

This is why I said at the beginning that refusing Torah is not an issue of scripture. This is not "Well, Jesus said this, but Paul said this and Peter agrees. James seems to hint the other way . . . and there is some Bishop in Alexandria who found an obscure church historical document that might suggest that . . . " This is not vagaries. This is not, "Well, I could see this going two different ways because each side has a couple of verses and good arguments. It is not like each side pulled out a couple verses scattered across one or two books that could mean anything you want.

It is not even as though I pulled out a story about a guy named Peter on a rooftop with a vision and then built a doctrine on that, even though the guy himself said it meant something else. This is the consistent teaching of scripture—including prophecies that told us it would be so—versus a doctrine built primarily on the work of a disciple named Paul, long after he vehemently denied it. Repeatedly. As did all of his fellow disciples.

Once the Word is confronted, it becomes a problem of a stiff-neck and a hard-heart. But . . . in kindness to our frailty, we do stand against some deeply-ingrained doctrines that are held by a majority of Christians (but I believe a waning majority). How could so many followers of Messiah be so deceived? Let us look at those final objections. Let us make Paul and those few incidents make sense. It is what Paul would want. Let us be reconciled to God.

##  Objections

##  Reconciling our Fears

I have been eager to write this portion. Not because there is some monumental surprise to be displayed here. If you did not skip here, then you know all we have to do is pull the plug on the post-Torah doctrine, and it will die of natural causes.

But that is only half a goal. That is a trap avoided, but what are we avoiding the trap in order to reach? This is not a book about defeating anti-Torahism. At the heart, the reason Christians reject Torah is because we reject God . . . at least, God as we do not understand Him. We want to accept Him. We want to love Him and trust His goodness, but it is difficult to see. Try saying otherwise to someone who has lost a child, or a spouse, or is racked with a debilitating disease. We do not just need to be convinced that God is good in a doctrinal sense, we need to taste it. And that is why Torah is so exciting, because this is the character of God revealed. And it is revealed through His people; His children living it out. You _can_ taste God's goodness _because_ of the Torah! As we saw earlier, the reason given for the commandments is "I am יהוה."

Yet, that is what people have such a hard time with. They have been told that Torah is cruel and burdensome and empty. If Torah reveals God's character (and whether He said it or not, we would know it is true), then God must be cruel and burdensome and empty. Isn't that what the world teaches us? That God is trying to take all the good things out of our lives?

We are afraid that to accept Torah is to accept a cruel master, but I am here to tell you that to accept Torah is to find a Father's love. Let me highlight some of the commands you probably don't know. You know about stoning children for trivial offenses and no doubt a thousand other _made up_ commands. Let me take you on a tour of some of my lesser-known favorites. And let the Word speak to you of יהוה's character.

### Torah, Instruction of the Compassionate God

I used to be in favor of harshly securing America's borders until I read Exodus 22:21. Knowing who and what and for what purpose someone is crossing your border is a need of the defense of your people, which is the primary purpose that God raised up judges (government) for, but we are not to harass people who _wish_ to cross our borders _and_ keep our laws while doing so. We are not to make their way difficult.

יהוה cares about the widow and the fatherless, 22:22-24.

Do not charge the poor interest, 22:25.

If you take collateral from a poor person that they need for living, give it back to them when they need it, Exodus 22:26-27. Deuteronomy 24:10-13, repeats this and gives further instruction that you are not to go into your brother's house to seize the collateral. This makes me question whether forced confiscation of property with a lien on it (as opposed to say your property being used by a delinquent tenant) can be done rightly. Verse six of Deuteronomy 24 says you are not to take a person's means of livelihood for collateral either.

Don't make a false report, Exodus 23:1.

If you see your enemy in need, you are to help, Exodus 23:4-5. Do you suppose that was the instruction that Solomon was thinking of in Proverbs 25:21 where he tells his son to give food and water to his enemy to heap coals on his head? See, when we get to Yeshua without the understanding that He is for Torah, we imagine He is coming up with all these strange new doctrines that never existed before . . . That is such a damaging doctrine. Think about it. God wants compassion, forgiveness, love, and faith, and for thousands of years He never told his people? He never lifted a finger or a word of guidance to stop His children from all their self-inflicted misery? Correction; misery that he instituted? He was content to watch them gouge each others eyes out, stone their children, torture their enemies, but we are supposed to believe He is good?

But Yeshua did not come to create some new religion; He came to re-deem, and re-store, and re-new what had been corrupted. When your sheep are lost, are they lost because they have wandered out from their original pastures? Or because they have not wandered into _new_ pastures? When the prodigal son "came to himself" did he return to his old home, or did he get a fresh start somewhere new? It should not surprise us that we find something of Yeshua's teaching in the Tanakh, it should surprise us if we find anything in His teachings that is completely, alien to the Tanakh.

Continuing in the commandments, the reason the seventh year the farmers are not to work the ground is so the ground can rest, and the poor eat, 23:11.

Exodus 23:12. The Sabbath, I have to mention this because we have been taught to think of it as a big "can't", but how can we miss the part that it is given so that we _rest_ and are _refreshed._ If your boss says, "Take a break", who thinks "dang, I can't work"?

God cares for animals. Don't seethe a goat in its mother's milk, 23:19. Even an offered animal shall remain with its mother for seven days, Exodus 22:30. Do not kill the mother and the young in the same day, Deuteronomy 22:6-7.

Later in Leviticus 19, in the same area of the Torah that describes the four things the Apostles relayed for the gentiles _to_ keep—in what is sometimes called "the heart of the Torah"— יהוה says not to cheat your neighbor, nor delay paying your employee what he is owed.

Verse 14, don't curse the deaf; don't put a stumbling block in front of the blind.

19:17-18, do not hate your brother, and love your neighbor as yourself. Don't hold grudges.

19:32, honor your elders.

19:35-36, don't cheat with an unjust measure. If you sell them a pound of meat, give them a pound.

Rather than a killjoy, יהוה loves a _good_ time. Among His appointed feast days is the feast of Tabernacles (which Zechariah explicitly named as a feast that all nations will keep). יהוה says that for seven days we are to rejoice, Leviticus 23:40. It is impossible to rejoice, without _joy._ When turning in your tithes, יהוה says to rejoice in it, Deuteronomy 12:7, 18. 12:12, rejoice.

In Deuteronomy 12:15, 20-21, segueing from the topic of tithes—which were supposed to be _eaten_ at Jerusalem— יהוה says that non-tithe meat can be eaten outside of Jerusalem. Notice the language, the KJV translates it as lust, but it might be easier to understand the ASV or the JPS version which says "desireth." This is a whole commandment about if you see some clean animal that you want to eat that is not your tithe, go ahead and eat it. But of course, pour out the blood—which is what the Apostles affirmed. The whole premise of the commandment is that God wants you to eat what you desire. God _wants_ you to have what you desire!

And did you catch that the tithes _are to be eaten_ in the place where יהוה sets His name? Am I making the case for traveling to Jerusalem, well, if it is not too far to go . . . but the main thing is, He says tithes are for your eating. Yes, they are for giving. In other places He says to remember the Levite, the orphan, and the widow, but at least some portion of it is for your own _joyful_ consumption. When was the last time, the sermon on tithing included the necessity of simply _enjoying_ some of your tithe before יהוה? You think, I am stretching? Making up a doctrine on a single reference? Try Deuteronomy 14:22-26. Through Moses, יהוה commands that if the place be too far to travel, turn your tithe into money and go there; and do what? "Give that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for _wine_ , or for _strong drink_ , or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt _eat_ before יהוה your God, and thou shalt _rejoice_ , thou, and thine household . . . " Emphasis mine. Wine and strong drink? Rejoicing is serious business with God. What does that say about God, really? He commands, rest, rejoicing, loving, enjoying, what kind of God has such concern for His people?

I don't believe this advocates getting drunk, but it does advocate "making merry" for God. What's the dividing line? Well, from studying the Bible, I have concluded my personal standard for when enough becomes too much is when you can no longer keep Torah. The moment you cannot keep your self from blaspheming (even in your heart), you have had too much. The moment where you can no longer love your neighbor; it is too much. The moment you no longer can provide for your wife's needs including food, clothes, and cohabitation with sexual availability (yes, that is in there, Exodus 21:10-11); it is too much. When you can't keep your tongue from gossip it is too much. Since a commandment is something put inside you, you could say that you are drunk when the alcohol displaces the truth.

But it is not too much simply because you enjoy it while living out those commandments.

With that disclaimer behind us, the point is that יהוה not only tells us to keep from destructive things like eating the wrong foods, engaging in harmful sexual relations, murdering, stealing, working through the Sabbath, which are all "negative" commands that we have probably heard preached, our God is also one who desires and commands our good. Telling us to provide for the poor, not to harass immigrants, not to cheat each other, be kind to our animals, meeting the needs of our spouse, and yes, having a party in God's name.

What does this tell us about יהוה? It tells us what the traditional doctrine does not. That יהוה does not just love us; He likes us. As the best of Fathers, He is not interested only in putting thoughts into His children's mind but enjoyable experiences in their days. He wants to see smiles on our faces not only when it does not harm our character, but to improve our character. Remember, 1 John said that in keeping His Word the love of God is perfected in us. Our joy is a commandment. Seeking joy _in_ God's paths of righteousness, allows God to perfect His love in us.

Have you ever been taught that? Have you ever heard that in the Old Testament, God wanted our joy so that we would be more like Him? Did you ever hear that God wanted you to have a drink to Him? No wonder, the world thinks God is stuffy. The doctrine of the "New Testament God" is essentially the same as the Far Eastern philosophy and the Greek philosophy that the body is a prison and therefore experience in the flesh is worthless. How often are _you_ told to disregard the good and bad that happen in your body and in this life because "it's not your home." Or told how empty ritual is, while you are admonished to go to church every Sunday, attend the weekly prayer meeting on Wednesday, meet in small groups regularly, get baptized, take communion once a month, and of course, put a $20 in the plate?

Not to lose track of our first quarry, but that doctrine of bodily neglect is a lie from the pit of hell. Again, going back to the beginning, God made Man and Woman as _bodies_ that held souls and spirits. And when He had finished creating, He had called it good _seven times_. Seven, in biblical example, is the number of an oath. God _swore_ that His original creation was good. And here we are trashing it like a pig pen, both in word and deed.

Now, the thing about a counterfeit is that it resembles the true. Yes, _now_ , on a fallen unrestored Earth an unresurrected mortal body is not our home, and what happens here is not the important part, but we are coming back here. Jerusalem comes down; it does not blast off. When Yeshua returns, He is on His way down to the Mount of Olives. The Heavens and Earth are remade, not for the animals only, but for us too.

So life in the body matters. It is not more important to preserve _this_ flesh over a life of faith, but what you do in your flesh determines the state of your soul, and vise-a-versa. That is why God cares about it, and that is not the result of some burden from the cruel "Old Testament god". He did not design our existence knowing we would _have_ to _drag_ our bodies through this _arduous_ life. He chose this life of flesh as the way we are perfected so that we can live perfected in this body made new.

This is the God of the Old Testament and the New. The God who cares about your body, soul, and Spirit—the one who commands abstinence from evil and indulgence in good. This is the God most Christians do not know. Not a far off, brain only God, but a near one who wants to hug you and give you gifts that you can smell, touch, feel, see, and hear. Can't you just feel this nearness? I was taught of a God who cared only for my soul, who disdained all of the things in life that really taught me about Him. The stars painting the sky, I enjoyed with my eyes for my soul. The smell of cumin in the air, when my mother made Mexican food, was a gift to my soul through my nose. When I helped a friend or a stranger in need, I did it with my arms and legs and mouth, or simply by the presence of my body, the touch of my skin. All things I was taught in church were meaningless to God. How can you be near a God like that? Everything you enjoy in life is worthless to Him? It is no wonder the world sees Him as completely distant and irrelevant.

The Torah teaches me that I can touch God. I can feel Him. When I do righteousness, it is not of myself, it is יהוה breathing through me. His breath powers my body to do righteousness, sanctifying me. I can feel Him inside, His work in my fingers as I work for Him. I can _taste_ His praise in a bottle of Hard Cider, a salted steak, or my wife's lips. His ways, His Torah, lets me recognize Him inside me and in the world around me, and it makes me like Him. It makes me a part of Him.

When we approach Torah, we must _un_ learn what the church has taught. I started with these examples of commandments because they are likely ones we are _un_ familiar with. We are only told about the "cruel" ones. Who knew that long before Yeshua, יהוה had already taught us to love our enemies? As I said earlier, Yeshua is יהוה. יהוה is Yeshua. The person of Yeshua who saved the adulteress in John 8 is the same person who told us that an adulteress should be stoned.

When we fear Torah, it is because we imagine Torah is a law like one of man's laws, which are so easily perverted. People-in-the-know exploit a loophole to do the same activity that an ignorant person goes to jail for. People-in-the-know write advantages for themselves into the law regardless of the rights of those they are seeking to ensnare. At best, the people trying to impartially enforce the law play into the hands of the malevolent because they follow the letter which allows the loopholes. Someone gets away with murder because their Miranda rights were not given, despite the evidence and their own admission. We are afraid, that God's perfection translates into mechanical, bureaucratic enforcement guided only by the ink strokes on paper.

Frankly, that's OCD. What are strokes of ink on paper? What are words? They have no power, no instruction on their own. They _represent_ thoughts and meanings. A word only has meaning if there is a speaker with a meaning, and a hearer who understands the meaning. So when we fear a mathematical exaction of ruthless justice, it is because _we_ interpret in those words that meaning. That is _our_ meaning. But look at God's character, what is יהוה' _s_ meaning?

In Exodus 34:27, speaking of the covenant, יהוה says that it was after the "tenor of these words . . . " He made a covenant. That is a good translation, but the actual word for "tenor" is _peh_. _Peh_ is both a pictographic letter in ancient Hebrew and a word in modern Hebrew that means "mouth."

"The mouth of these words"? What does that mean? Well, what is important about the mouth of a well, except the water beneath it? What is the importance of the mouth of a sack, except the contents of the sack? What is the importance of a man's mouth, except his words in the heart? The words have value based on the speaker not the sounds. If man says, "I promise I will always be there for you", it means something entirely different than if יהוה the God of the universe says, "I promise I will always be there for you." One is a good intentioned "maybe", the other is an absolute certainty. Even the words you just read 'absolute certainty' only carry with them the concept that _I_ imagine; and you will only receive the part that you imagine with me.

So in the Torah, it does not matter what the angles of the brush strokes are. It does not matter what sounds they signal. It matters what God meant. The _Peh_ is that _unseen_ thing we talked about in the beginning. It is not a contradiction of the seen; it is the iceberg beneath the surface. So what do we know about יהוה? He is merciful, gracious, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving, but not altogether clearing the guilty, Exodus 34:5-7. Notice the "positive" traits are first and the "negative" are last? He is not without judgment, but He is patient first, compassionate in judgment, and forgiving those that love Him.

I will grant at this point that this appears circular. We understand the character of God because of His commandments, but we understand His commandments because of the character of God? Circular in appearance or not, it seems true. I will offer perhaps a clarification, that I would use the term paradox instead of circular. In the circle, one causes the other, which causes the other. It is a closed system. In reality, God's Spirit is ministering understanding to the seeker as they try both to understand the word and to understand the character behind the word. The words are not really important next to the Spirit which gives discernment. Perhaps you could say that the reading of the words is simply the path of sanctification; where we are to focus and the Spirit will meet us there.

What does this concept look like when applied? We might look at the command to keep the Sabbath. Exodus 31:14-15, and 35:2, all say that he who does work on the Sabbath shall be put to death. That is the truth. That is what the person who is Yeshua says. We have trouble with that, but remember this command is after the mouth, or tenor, of the words. God is longsuffering, and forgiving, how do we reconcile that with this command? The easiest way would be to look at the words "defileth" and "doeth". One of the things I really like about the KJV is that old common English makes more clarified distinctions out of verb tenses. The command is not death for anyone who _has done_ work, it is for someone who _doeth_ work.

Now, how would you determine that? How does it change from past tense to present imperfect tense (still going in the present)? Obviously, they are still doing it! In the Torah when a person sinned something that was worthy of death, it did not by itself create a license to kill that person. The person had to be judged; the facts had to be established by at least two agreeing witnesses. A diligent inquiry had to be made. And in matters of controversy the judges would go to the priest to inquire from God. Why would there be a controversy if the application of the ink was always immediately obvious to the judges?

Do you suppose that there might be a controversy around a man who did break the Sabbath, but when confronted (or had his own change of heart), repented, but was now being charged? Do you think the merciful and kind יהוה might want to save that person? So then what is the difference between _did_ and _doeth_?

Repentance.

And how true is that? Psalm 51:7, a contrite heart He will not despise. Isn't that the nature of all accepted confessions? Humility manifesting in repentance.

Deuteronomy 17 speaks about resolving controversy, the plea versus plea and taking the issue to the national judge and the priest. Verses 12-13 talks about the man who will _presumptuously_ disregard the sentence that the judge and the priest deliver. Again, the sinner is given opportunity by the authority to change course, but he chooses not to. No one in scripture is put to death for a _slip_. Moses did not mispronounce words, he made up his own that discredited God and struck the rock; that is why he lost the opportunity to enter the Promised Land. David didn't accidentally sleep with Bathsheba and kill her husband.

If I was to make an opinionated summary, there is only one circumstance that requires the death penalty, and that is impenitent defiance, pride, self-willed conscious disobedience. People were not killed for breaking the Sabbath, committing adultery, homosexuality, or murder; they were killed for spitting in God's face and continuing to spit in God's face.

This is all in keeping with the person the New Testament tells us Yeshua is. Speaking of the nearness of Yeshua's return and certain destructive judgment, 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that יהוה is not slack in keeping His promise to us; He is longsuffering in His desire that all men should repent. Even though the entire world is about ripe for His wrath, with no promise of mercy at all, יהוה endures all of its sin and wickedness. Why would we think that יהוה in applying His own Torah to His own people would be less gracious?

### The God with Arms Wide Open

One of the other objections to a life with Torah is that, after years or even a lifetime with the New Testament as your only real guidance, this Torah seems to be a chafing sackcloth suit. You feel as though you have inherited a huge burden of new commandments; it is simply too hard. This is, of course, false. Firstly, the Torah is for out good, יהוה our God says so. Secondly, the commands are not grievous, the Apostle John said so by the Spirit. Thirdly, we saw in Acts that God does not expect us to be instantly in lock-step with all the commandments that we were ignorant of. Fourthly, it reveals an issue of allegiance. How is it possible that a "primitive" nomadic people in the desert could do something with joy that we, citizens of the modern world with all our conveniences, find difficult and burdensome? If you incline your heart to keep יהוה's instruction, you will soon discover that the only hard part about doing so is other people who insist that you stop doing it.

In truth, many of the things the Torah says to do Christians already gladly do but without knowing the why. While other areas are not kept and we suffer a lack of blessing because of it. We see promiscuous people, and when their behavior leads to heartbreak we immediately connect the dots. Yet, when we see a person fraying like a rope holding too much weight, we don't think maybe that is because they are working seven days a week. We see someone with a "bad" diet and health problems, and we say they should eat better, but our guidance on what constitutes better is from the Department of Health and Human Services instead of from the book we call Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

Let me put to you that keeping Torah is actually the easier and healthier and more blessed way to live. In short it is the less burdened way to live. This should not be a surprise since I am only agreeing with what your Bible already says. I only say _less burdened_ because as long as we are sinners living among sinners there will always be burdens. Basically, I want to make the case that Torah is actually the way of freedom.

Have you ever been to a church where they only sing hymns, and you really just want to sing something upbeat and contemporary? The explanation comes back that God is holy and, frankly, too serious for upbeat.

Have you ever wanted to raise you hands or dance in a strange church, but knew immediately that it would be frowned upon? The answer comes back, raising hands is a crazy Pentecostal thing, and dancing . . . well, dancing is what the world does. Dance inherently means hips doing sexually provocative things. As you well know, there is scientific evidence that specific hip angles, velocities, and torque actuation are inherently sexual, regardless of intent. In fact, a study showed that if a woman turned her hips in just such a way, every male within three hundred meters is immediately provoked. Even if they did not see her.

Have you ever been to a church that pushed for regular attendance, not just of Sunday worship, but also _encouraged_ you to realize that _if_ you were spiritual, then you would also attend early morning Sunday school; stay for the potluck afterwards; go to the prayer meeting on Wednesday; the small groups all over town on different days; and of course help with every church function _since_ you _know_ that Christ gave _all_ for you . . . it is the least you can do?

Have you ever been to a church that insists drinking is a morally depraved act? One where the women and the men each had an unspoken uniform? One where if you recommended the wrong book or movie, you would likely find yourself free from all those spiritual meetings? One where if a woman prophesied the whole congregation—which was _so_ unified—would split down the middle? Or where if someone did _not_ speak in tongues, you would have to cover your upper lip and run through the church yelling unclean?

Why do these things happen? How is it that the _body_ of Messiah, is so easily divided? How is that we have unity only so long as no one says what they really think? Only so long as we are being policed by each other according to a standard that we each _know_ is true without knowing it until one of the other police tells us?

And that is the key. The standard. All of these questions I have listed are based in New Testament Only doctrine. I am not saying that cannot happen with the Tanakh, but I am asking, wasn't the New Testament supposed to bring us together? To put our burdens down? I am speaking as the church culture teaches. It was supposed to fix all the problems (mistakes) of the Old Testament and usher in utopia. Yet, how many denominations are there? How is it a town of only 2,900, has 40 churches all worshipping the same Son of God, none of which are full, and will not work with each other?

There is a reason that Yeshua and the Apostles attacked tradition held as sacred. Remember when Yeshua was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness? How did He respond _every_ time? With the Holy Scriptures. And back in Genesis, how did man, in the person of Eve, respond? With the word of man. She changed "thou shalt not eat" to "thou shalt not eat _nor touch_ ". What was the result? Failure. God's Word gives victory; Man's word gives defeat.

Time for another history lesson. After David was Solomon. Solomon was wise and good for awhile, but in the end while _breaking_ Torah by multiplying his wives and taking wives who were worshippers other gods, which he then bowed down to, he brought God's judgment on his kingdom. According to 1 Kings 11:31, יהוה took the unity of the kingdom from Solomon's son Rehoboam. There is that _signal_ and _execution_ , again. Now there is an interesting story that follows. The King of the seceding House of Israel was Jeroboam. But Jeroboam knows enough Torah to know that every year there are three feasts that require all men to appear before יהוה _in Jerusalem_.

Jeroboam is afraid that going up to sacrifice in Jerusalem will eventually lead the people of the ten tribes back to an allegiance to Rehoboam. So what does he do to _prevent unity_? He makes the famous golden calves. And what does he do with them? He makes a new feast, _and_ he does _not_ say that they are serving _new_ gods, he says "Behold thy gods, O Israel _which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt._ "

In order to keep the people divided, Jeroboam changed the Word of God to change the people's ways while claiming they were actually serving the same God.

Now, at this point—I debated whether to bring this up—but I can't help thinking that we as Christians claim to be serving the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Jews and of Moses, yet we hold Sunday sacred and ignore the day which just about every scholar admits is the actual Sabbath day. Easter is kept instead of Passover and the spring feasts; and Christmas is kept instead of the Feast of Tabernacles even though most Christians will freely admit that Christ was not born then. I am not going to try convincing you on each of these, but have you ever asked yourself why these things are kept? You cannot take any of them back to scripture. Some might argue for Sunday, but you have two references against about twelve if you are only counting from Acts onward. Read the Catholic histories, see why they say Catholics (and Protestants) started keeping Sunday. Diligently inquire for yourself, and you will find that some if not many of these and other customs of the church are in fact inherited from paganism or as a result of anti-Semitism. You will at least see that most are a result of tradition, not God's Word.

This same pattern repeats over and over. The enemy divides churches along the lines of addendums to the Word while God's people only hold together by clinging to God's Word. In the Torah, Deuteronomy 5:32 says to do as יהוה commands, neither going to the left hand (symbol of covering, hiding, wrapping) nor to the right hand (symbol of strength and friendship). Do not make it more or less. He repeats this same phrase in 17:11 talking about the sentence from the priest in the case of controversy. 17:20 says it again in the case of the King's need to write his own copy of the Torah so that he will not wander. 28:14 says it a fourth time with the promise of blessing. Deuteronomy 4:2 also says explicitly not to add or augment nor to diminish or scrape off what יהוה commands. In 12:32 He repeats do not add; do not diminish.

יהוה gave enough. Now certainly, there is interpretation. We have to discern how to apply the commandments, as we demonstrated in the previous section. Not all Sabbath breaking deserved death. David ate of the showbread. Rahab and her family were spared. Yeshua understood helping your animal out of a ditch did not violate Torah. יהוה foretold that there would be controversy. We will not always know from a simple reading what something means.

How then can we be sure we are interpreting and applying rather than adding to or taking from the Torah? The answer is actually quite simple. It all goes back to the _Peh_ of the words (the words as understood through God's Spirit). If we assume there is this problem that interpretation and changing the Word are only a hair apart, a line easily trampled, then we assume God is not actually participating in the act of interpretation. All scripture is spiritually discerned, said Paul. There is no hope on the basis of our flesh reading strokes of ink that we will come to the right conclusion. No good thing dwells in our flesh. Our _only_ hope is that יהוה will show Himself strong. That in leaning on יהוה He will make it apparent. That is the same thing that we as Christians say about the New Testament, why would we assume it would be different about the more specific Torah?

And it is that specificity that gives us freedom. People imagine that the presence of rules, or rulings, means less freedom. Imagine you are in the ocean with no land to be seen in any direction, an overcast sky so that you cannot figure out where the sun is; are you more free without boundaries or landmarks than the guy on the beach? No. Is a man without God and any of His Instruction, in writing or in Spirit, freer than Yeshua who only came to do the will of the Father? Boundaries make freedom.

And we can see this in our literal example of the mainstream church. Why are there so many denominations? Someone "discerned" a line in doctrine from the New Testament, apart from the foundational specificity of Torah, and enforced it against someone else who disagreed. This is not an attack on instruction coming out of the New Testament. Many have in many places rightly discerned truths and, yes, life application. However, the New Testament stands upon the foundation of the Tanakh, not apart from it.

So when we come to a Baptist church and they say no drinking, I can point to God's word and say, "No, I really can." When men say no dancing, I say, "You better clear out because I'm about to bust a move up in here."

When I go to a really on fire contemporary church and they say I need to be more involved then just on Sunday, I say, "Actually, Sunday is a workday, and even if I choose to worship on that day _in addition_ to holding the Sabbath Holy, then it is my choice because God gave me six days to work in and only asked for the Sabbath day for me to rest with Him."

When told I don't really love God because I only give ten percent and I actually enjoy the use of some of that for feast days, I'll say, "I give God what He asks for because I love him, and He lets me keep the other 90% because He loves me."

See, when Paul talks about "taste not, handle not"—which we'll deal with—I can't help thinking that the church has made up more of those than Moses did and they change from church to church instead of one Torah that we all abide by. And I will say that a lot of those are _good_ traditions so long as they are kept as _traditions_ and not as Torah, but like Eve we make them have the same force and that is why our faith is weak and divided. The enemy cannot defeat God's word, but man's is easily exploited. How does it reflect on _your_ faith as a Christian when you see another church burdening people with their own rules? When another church makes new comers unwelcome by judging them according to their tradition? Does it not make you resent that body of believers? Thus you are divided. And since you no doubt want to separate yourself from that conduct you put a distinction between you and them, " _They_ don't represent Christ!" Thus now, you attack other Christians.

Clearly, I am not advocating abstinence from rebuke. This book is itself a rebuke against mainstream church doctrine. What I am saying is that when we add to God's word, we make it more burdensome and more vulnerable. The members of our own community find themselves in a minefield trying not to displease other members, and confusing who the enemy is because we do not know what God says and live by what man says.

That is why living by the Torah is the freeman's way. It frees us from the judging of men altogether because the goal of Torah is not to please men, but God. It frees us from obligations to follow rules that unlike God's are not blessings but simply obligation. And it gives us permission to do those things that are good that well intentioned church doctrine has forbidden. The other aspect of that is that _we are the church_. The doctrine of the church cannot oppress anyone, only its people can. When we add rules, _we_ condemn people, though sometimes out of our _kindness_ we will not confront them, but in our hearts we do. Then we walk through our days looking at others and condemning them for faults. This steals _our_ peace more than theirs. That is why I believe Psalm 119:165 says, "Great peace have they which love thy Torah: and nothing shall offend them." If _I_ am walking in יהוה's ways and delight in His Instruction, no one can convince me that I am a "bad Christian". And at the same time, I know that יהוה is doing the sanctifying both in me and others. So when I see someone mess up, whether I imagine it out of my tradition or discern it out of God's instruction, I do not have be offended. I do not have to see the world as a bunch of sinners and get bunched up inside. I can see, hear, and be in the presence of terrible things but internally _I_ do not have to lose peace because I am close to God.

With all this talk of regulation and law that comes up when talking about the Torah, have you ever stopped to think about how many things God does not talk about? How many areas of your life God did not make any rule about? God didn't say what colors you had to wear or not wear. He did not tell you how many servings of ice cream you could eat. He did not say how many songs you had to sing or what kind for worship. He told you to rest on the Sabbath, and with few clarifications He did not tell you what that meant. Is a free game of golf work? Is hiking work? Is going for a motorcycle ride? God did not make any commands about art, other than not to make images or praise to false gods.

The most ironic thing to me is that in America, Christians say we should follow the laws of the land, which include tens of thousands of statutes that affect your everyday life, but to keep six hundred and thirteen commands (one of which is to neither add nor subtract) would somehow diminish our freedom.

All this section comes back to the _Peh_ of the Words. The name Yeshua is a closer rendition of what "Jesus'" name actually was. In the past, the "J" represented the "Y" sound, as in hallelujah, so maybe that's what they were thinking when his name was originally transliterated. It was close, but unfortunately it became alienated from its Hebrew roots. Yeshua is important because it means salvation. However, when we think of salvation, in modern Christendom, it is the idea that the ship is sinking and someone throws you a life preserver. Or the house is burning down and someone opens the door. Or you are falling and someone throws you a life-line. Those all sound good, but they are all negative. In each example you are hurtling towards destruction, and salvation is simply _not_ being destroyed. But the word origin of Yeshua is _Yasha_. _Yasha_ means "wide open" or _free_.

Yeshua is not saving you from destruction; He is delivering you _to_ safety. To a good land and large, He said. He is opening the cramped pen to let you into a wide ranging world. He is pulling you with that life-line to the breathtaking height of a beautiful mountain. So it makes sense that when Yeshua gave His Torah, it would be the path of living a free life. Psalm 119:45 says, "I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts."

Yasha means wide open.

##  The Short Case File

Before were two, more emotionally based issues. It is not that God has to justify His position to us, but He knows our frailty. As the man prayed, "I believe, lord, help my unbelief." Sometimes we try to understand, but we just cannot make the leap. With יהוה all things are possible, but sometimes we do not walk in that power, and God knows what it will take for us to be willing. For a lot of people, after a lifetime of being told the Torah is cruel and burdensome, it is emotionally difficult to reconcile that with the loving kind God we learned about in Sunday school. So many of us can understand that the questions of cruelty and of burdensomeness, are difficult and sincere obstacles; unfounded, but heartfelt.

However, if you skipped over the "Groundwork" portion of this book, it might behoove you to go back at this point and read it. Next, we will be dealing with the isolated scriptural objections. There are many different variations—I will not be dealing with every retread—but essentially they all come down to the following forms. Most of which may be resolved without heavy lifting after the material already covered. So rather than attempting to merely defeat these objections, I will attempt to restore them to what they _are_ teaching rather than explaining what they are _not_ teaching.

### The Sabbath, the Corn, and the Bread

The first such example that we will inspect is the situation where Yeshua is with His disciples on the Sabbath day walking through a field of wheat. Remember from earlier, the default question that must be answered in every teaching of Yeshua is _how does this magnify the Torah_? _Not_ _how does this dismantle it?_ In Matthew 12:1-2, is the beginning of our case. The Pharisees accuse the disciples of doing that which is unlawful. Now in contemporary church view we would assume the Pharisees are making a legitimate accusation, however, remembering that Yeshua said the Pharisees _did not_ keep the Torah; and that they _did keep_ the traditions of men. The first question must be answered, is what the disciples are doing contrary to Torah?

The simple answer is no. There is no command in scripture that says when hungry you should not pick food to eat on the Sabbath day. There is the command to rest, including interrupting the time of plowing and the time of reaping (Exodus 34:21), but harvesting is different than plucking. We can see that in Deuteronomy 23:24-25 where it distinguishes that it is okay to pluck a few grapes or ears of corn from your neighbor's field or vineyard, but not to put in a sickle (a harvesting tool). Interestingly, this command suggests a general principle that taking of your neighbor to feed your hunger is not stealing. That is especially relevant because in Matthew the disciples are hungry. If man can glean from his neighbor's field to satisfy himself but not make a living off of it, it suggests a person starving is of greater concern (compassion?) to God then property rights. Should the Pharisees assume that keeping the Sabbath was of higher concern?

That is two strikes, one the Pharisees are accusing the disciples of something that _is not_ contrary to Torah, and secondly they are missing the consistent message of Torah that human need is important to God. That is how I would have answered them, but how does Yeshua? He asks two questions, 12:3-4, He asks about the case when David was _hungered_. He points out a place where Torah was "legitimately broken." By that I mean there is a command in Torah, Leviticus 24:5-9, that describes how the showbread is made, and how only the sons of Aaron may eat of it. David was "breaking" Torah; however . . . Let us look more closely at the account.

By way of refresher, the story is in 1 Samuel 21. David comes alone, on the run from Saul, and comes to the Priest for help. Why is David there? _For help._ He then _lies_ to the Priest about what his business is. I know what you are thinking, this is getting hairy. Lying to יהוה's Priest? David asks for bread and _the Priest says_ there is no common bread present, but _he_ offers the showbread if the men (who are not present) have at least stayed away from women. That last part is not a slam on women, but though sex is not a sin, it does render the man and woman unclean until they have bathed and an amount of time has passed as also we saw with Simon the tanner. So, yes, David is lying _to the Priest_ , but it is the Priest who offers the hallowed bread. The Pharisees in Yeshua's time are having a problem with plucking common wheat from a field on the Sabbath, but יהוה's priest is offering holy bread to a man in need, which do you think seems consistent with Torah?

Fortunately, the Holy Spirit inspiring the scriptures did not leave us without indication of whether David was right or wrong. After giving the bread and Goliath's sword, the priest inquires of יהוה, 1 Samuel 22:10 and in 22:14-15. Do you suppose that God could not have said to the Priest, "Um . . . David lied to you. He's not on the King's business. Don't give him the bread. Kill him for breaking my Torah." For that matter, couldn't God have killed him on the spot? And after that fact, how come God never brings it up as a fault? See, it all comes back to the _Peh_. Yes, David broke the ink strokes as _we_ would enforce them, but not as יהוה meant them, and it is only His meaning which is true.

In יהוה's mind there is no contradiction between saying the bread is Holy and saying David's need is greater than the need for holiness. So then, if the Lawgiver does not find fault, then what law is David breaking? That of human understanding, or tradition. Yeshua in Matthew 12 is not saying David broke יהוה's instruction. He is saying that David did what the Pharisees would have condemned and yet יהוה did not.

Matthew 12:5 is a little more difficult, how do the priests profane the Sabbath day? Well, I would suggest that He is again using their idiom. Just as David did that which they would find unlawful, likewise, by the same standard the priests "profane" the Sabbath by working every Sabbath. In both cases, there is an aim of a greater work—hard to understand with David lying to the High Priest—a greater work that conflicts with _our reading_ of the Torah, but is in line with the _Peh_. This makes sense of verse six. If the work of the Temple trumps the rest of the Sabbath then so must the work that is greater than the Temple's. Verse seven confirms this, "I will have kindness, and not sacrifice." God wants the abundance of goodness between men and towards God, not the blood of animals. That is not because the blood of animals does not or did not have a place, but that was not the point. The point was goodness. And if the Pharisees had understood this they would not have condemned the guiltless. With that close, Yeshua confirms the rebuttal of the accusation, "they did nothing wrong." Yeshua does not disregard the Torah; He uses the Torah to make the case that it is okay. He upholds the Torah, not annuls it.

Verses later in Matthew 12:9-14, He confronts them on their stance on the Sabbath using the case of the man with the withered hand. We have looked at the _Peh_ of the Words so to us it should seem natural. As it was with David, God's aim is man's blessing so healing a man should be okay on the Sabbath. But this is the question that Yeshua puts to the Pharisees, and they _do not know_ or are unwilling to give the answer.

Do you see this? In a parallel passage in Mark 3 it says that Yeshua was grieved for their hardness of heart. That is the point I am trying to make, the Pharisees, hard-hearted and uncompassionate, read into the Torah a hard-hearted and uncompassionate doctrine. They are hard so the Torah is hard in their minds. יהוה is merciful, loving, abundant in kindness and truth, forgiving . . . etc, and His Torah is merciful, loving, abundant in kindness, etc . . . The other thing to notice is that in this view, which Yeshua apparently holds, He is _not_ rebuking them for keeping Torah but for their hardness of heart. Does that sound familiar coming from יהוה in the flesh?

One more piggy back, which speaks to this same issue though a different event. In Luke 13 is the case of the woman with the eighteen year infirmity. Yeshua tells those indignant at the healing that they are hypocrites because they loose their animals from the stall on the Sabbath. He then says, 13:16, that _because it is the Sabbath_ the woman ought also to be released. In the modern view, Yeshua is ridiculing them for trying to do what יהוה _our_ God told them to do; in the consistent view, He is rebuking them because they _are not_ doing what יהוה told them to do. Rather than making the Sabbath and the Torah unimportant, Yeshua places it as the motivational reason to heal. He is upholding Torah, and _they_ are degrading Torah and the Sabbath.

As I said though, my desire is not simply to defeat the anti-Torah mindset here. That could be done simply by pointing to the first half of this book. Anti-Torah is simply anti-biblical. What I do feel is important though is to turn these misunderstood teachings back to what they were meant to mean.

These examples are actually quite provocative. I know that I am uncomfortable with them. The accusation of the Pharisees was that Yeshua was allowing His disciples to break the Torah by breaking the Sabbath, but Yeshua's first question did not start with the Sabbath . . . It started with David lying to the Priest then eating hallowed bread. Yeshua is making a larger statement than one about the Sabbath. Mainstream Christianity is all too eager to point out the ox in the ditch example that seemingly exempts from the Sabbath, but Yeshua's example seemingly exempts a man in need from the authority of יהוה's Priest and His Temple order.

Would mainstream pastors be as quick to say that a man in need could "steal" from a church by lying to the pastor? What is the difference? If anything, stealing from a church where God's glory never dwelled should be a lesser crime. In fact, we have the example of Ananias and Saphira where the crime of merely lying resulted in death.

The difference is need. David at least thought he needed, and God seemingly agreed, that He needed to eat to live; and that was a greater work with God than the sanctity of His Holy Place. I would have to say that a man truly in need would be exonerated of stealing from a church. If I were to say otherwise then what was Yeshua's point at all? If certain needs did not temporarily set aside certain commands? And not only that one example, but a thousand others. Breaking the laws of your country to do a kindness to someone in need. For example, some consider it stealing to "cheat" your country of taxes by paying someone under the table. I believe if you can be "exempt" from the Sabbath which is God's law, or from not eating hallowed bread, because of need; then you can certainly be exempt from man's taxes to pay someone who actually needs the money—assuming you do not believe it is better to just give them the money.

This seems like a slippery slope. What about a woman who becomes a prostitute to "save" her family? What about a child who lies to their parents to do what they think is "right"? I would say the danger of the slope exists because of our flesh. Like the Pharisees, we see in the Torah's commands _and_ in the Torah's allowances according to what we look with, whether with our flesh or through the Spirit. _If_ such a case existed where there was such a _need_ for those examples (notice that in David's case, Rahab's case, the midwives of Egypt, need is always defined by the potential loss of human life), if David can lie to a priest of יהוה, and man can break the Sabbath to do holy work or even desperately needed work, then can we categorically say that such a case could not exist?

A note of exception to exceptions would be where that exception to the rule is based upon the need of itself. In David's example the need to live conflicted with his obligation to abide by the authority of the King as well as the Priest. In contrast to that, the Torah has commandments regarding how warfare is to be fought. How can the need to live in the case of war, which is inherently life and death, exempt a soldier from following God's commandments on how to fight a war? The need to live did not exempt any of Israel's soldiers from going into battle when commanded. The need to live does not exempt the unrepentant guilty from the communities obligation to put him to death. Some commands must be kept even in the face of the need to live.

However, we fear those cases that do not exist for most of us. Most of us do not have Nazi's at our door asking if we have Jews in our basement. Most of us are not choosing between whether to heal on the Sabbath day or not. Most of us are choosing whether or not we should go to that auction on the Sabbath. Whether we might offend our boss and lose our job that pays for our new car or that plasma screen TV, which we now owe on our credit card, and so we _must_ work on the Sabbath day. And that last one might be the case. The borrower is slave to the lender, and the commandment is not for a slave not to work, but for the owner not to compel the slave to work.

Those extreme cases are not the norms. Sadly, many Christians today are looking for ways to change their norm so that they do not _have_ to rest and hold as holy the day that God blessed. We are looking for excuses not to do things God's way, rather than permission to have peace about doing what is needed but abhorrent to us under normal conditions. Are you choosing to work on the Sabbath because you feel you have to and in reality hate doing so? Are you looking for a way to be able to do what you want and the Sabbath is in your way? That will answer your question of whether or not you are in sin.

### The Woman Caught in Adultery

This is perhaps the most emotionally charged case in scripture. A moment of triumph for grace over cruelty, and yet we shall see not a triumph over Torah.

Take a moment to assess your own emotions. Do we not think if this adulteress had been stoned that it would have been a cruelty? If our compassion has a legitimate founding, then since we know the speaker of the Torah was full of compassion, then mustn't the Torah also be intended with compassion? The Spirit inside testifies of what the correct Torah should look like.

In John chapter eight, is the story we are familiar with, however like the incident with Peter in Joppa, the story began earlier. Arguably, it started in Genesis, but we can pick up the arc a little later in John 7. In verse one, John writes that Yeshua would not walk in the Judean jurisdiction because the Jews sought to kill him. This seemingly innocuous fact should not be missed. The Jews _desired_ to kill him. Later on, we'll be talking about the "eye for an eye" case, but you will recall in that same place that Yeshua says that he who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of judgment same as one who murders (Matthew 5:22) and that murder comes out of the heart (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21). So these enemies of Yeshua who seek his death, what are they? Murderers. Later Yeshua will tell them so to their face and that it is because they do the works of their father the Devil.

John 7:2 tells us that it was the feast of Tabernacles. This is one of יהוה's appointed times, in fact it is one of the three feasts that the Holy One of Israel commanded all males to appear before him. Yeshua delays but does go. Now at the feast, the Jews seek him. Which Jews? His disciples? The people who were already there? The context clearly indicates that "The Jews" are the ones who seek to kill him. I am not sure why it calls them "the Jews" since most of the people there who are also _not_ seeking to kill him are Jews. 7:19-24 has Yeshua identifying them as people who _contrary to the Torah_ seek to kill him, and the reason they want to is because He healed a man on the Sabbath day. Now 7:37 tells us that the last day of the feast had come, but since biblically the day begins with sundown rather than midnight, it is possible that in John 8:1-2 the "early morning" is also the feast day. Or it might simply be the day after.

The point of this review has been context. We have Yeshua at the Temple _teaching_ people on or right after a High _Holy_ day when the people have gathered _according to_ יהוה's Instruction; and against him come "the Jews", apparently a group of the Pharisees and scribes. These religious elite, who are acting out the will of their father the Devil because they wish to kill him (John 8:37).

The reason that context is so important is because this incident is held up as an example of the barbarity of Moses. The scribes and Pharisees are held up as the example of what Moses taught with Yeshua playing the adversary of Moses. But that is not what Yeshua's own testimony says. In chapter seven, He said _they_ were acting _contrary_ to the Law of Moses, that none of them keep the Torah. So who in this scenario is actually representing the interests of Torah? It is not the Pharisees. It is the Guy the church says is doing the opposite. After the portion of Acts recording Paul, I cannot help thinking, Paul really was a disciple of Yeshua because the disciple and the master were both falsely accused of things and are now praised for those charges which they denied.

8:3-6 tells us these murderers bring a woman _into the Temple_ , the Holy place of God, _in order_ to tempt Yeshua who is in His Father's house teaching His Father's people as was His custom. I cannot help, but marvel at how the enemy has mangled this story. The plain reading in context has Yeshua honoring His Father by keeping the Torah of Moses, and yet it is the Pharisees who are perverting justice, ignoring the sanctity of the Temple, and conspiring to murder who are called the examples of what Torah teaches.

And perversion of justice is almost to light a term. Besides being guilty of conspiring to murder Yeshua, they are breaking another commandment of Torah. Exodus 23:2 & 6; Leviticus 19:15 & 35; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:18-19; 17:11; 27:19; all teach that judgment shall be just and untwisted. You are to hear the case, not make the case work for you. Hearing in this sense is not audible reception but _paying attention with the intent to act_. The Torah says to diligently inquire. All of which commandments Yeshua is about to uphold, even though Yeshua is not a judge (Luke 12:14). This matter should not have even been brought to Him. He is qualified, but in the eyes of the Torah it is outside His jurisdiction. If anything they should have brought this woman to the priest . . . but . . . they . . . didn't.

Verse 5, the murderers quote Moses. Or misquote, rather. Did Moses say that the _woman_ should be stoned? You could argue that it does say that, but the command literally says the adulterer _and_ the adulteress she be put to death. Where is the man? Now that is not saying you cannot punish one without the other (say the man had fled), but a just judge _diligently inquires_. He wants to know what the situation actually is. Yeshua is in fact at this moment staunchly upholding Torah because He is not going after a multitude to wrest judgment. Though He is not a judge in this case, Yeshua knows a judge is commanded to _hear_.

Speaking of hearing at a hearing, what is an essential part of any trial? What is the first thing you should ask for, if you want to diligently inquire? A plea! "You are charged with being a very heinous person. How do you plead?" It is the first thing that happens at a trial, even a non-Torah following, "fair" trial. Has the woman said anything? No. What do we assume these murderers and Temple degraders are above lying? That would be absurd. The Torah has something to say about how to deal with false witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:18). Her plea is essential to justice. Suppose she denies it and the truth cannot be proved, they would have to take the case to the judge and priest, and the priest would ask God. Whose side do you think God is going to come down on? And for that matter, what if she confessed that she had sinned and asked for God's mercy with a heart of true repentance? What would the Urim and Thummim say? Her plea _must_ be had.

And that issue of which way she pleaded—guilty and proud of it, guilty and repentant, not guilty—is essential not just for determining what happened in a fair way, but remember the Torah is to be kept according to the _Peh_ of the words. It is to be kept according to God's character not ours. It is the woman who committ _eth_ adultery who is stoned; the man who committ _eth_ murder who is to be stoned. Was this a one time thing that she immediately regretted and if "given space to repent" would have? Is she Bathsheba (who like David was _also_ not killed for adultery)? Or is she Jezebel? Numbers 15:28-36 makes a distinction between a sin of ignorance and a presumptuous sin. The word for ignorant sin is " _shagag_ ", meaning to go astray with more or less apology. Is it only straying when you are completely devoid of knowledge? When we do something inadvertent, when we go astray, is it not a reflection on the fact that we normally stay on the path? We normally do the right thing? We simply slipped. I say that to point out ignorance in our mind implies not knowing what right was, or not having enough facts, but it is also like when your son is looking at something else and spills his milk. He _knew_ not to spill his milk, but he did not _set out_ to spill his milk. That does not mean it is not sin. It does not mean there are not any consequences, but it is not the same thing as a presumptuous sin.

Our _Peh_ may be quick to stone, but יהוה's _Peh_ is not. A contrite heart, יהוה will not reject. It shows _our_ cruelty when we say יהוה's Torah required death for inadvertent sin, not His.

Back in John, Yeshua writes on the ground. While there are equally good speculations about what Yeshua wrote whether it was their sins, dates they had committed adultery, etc . . . For myself, I think the context gives a clue. This is just my own speculation, but in the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles Yeshua's invitation to the thirsty in chapter seven makes sense because it was on that day that there was a water ceremony (water libation) involving taking water up to the Temple. Sukkot has traditional themes relating to water which is why Yeshua's words seem extra poignant. So if in fact it is the morning of the last day of Sukkot, then I wonder if He might have been writing names on the ground. Why names? Because these Pharisees might have known Jeremiah 17:13 "O יהוה, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the Earth, because they have forsaken יהוה, the fountain of living waters."

Whatever you choose to believe, Yeshua follows it not by saying to the crowd "anyone who has not sinned cast . . . " He says _to them_ , 8:7, "He that is without sin _among you_ . . . " If you hold that Yeshua was saying anyone that has sinned is not qualified to put someone to death, then you must also hold that all capital punishment is wrong. Self-defense and the defense of others is wrong, and military action is wrong because they all cause death from one sinner to another. Furthermore, why would it stop there? If you cannot put someone to death who is worthy of death, can you in otherwise execute justice against someone worthy of that since you are still a sinner? Can you spank your child for disobeying his father, when you as a sinner disobey your Father?

This is a false doctrine; firstly because as we have seen here and everywhere else, the Bible upholds Torah, and Torah instructs the righteous way that self-defense, defense of others, capital punishment, and war may or must be conducted. But it is also false because we do not understand God's _Peh_. Is God merciful because He is lacking in judgment? No, God will destroy all His enemies. Make no mistake, Yeshua who spared this woman that day is the same one who will tread the winepress of the wrath of God. Why is He merciful? Because He longs for us to repent, for all men to seek Him. So when He spares, why is it? His goodness leads us to repent, Paul says in Romans 2:4. God is seeking repentance. So why would God _not_ spare someone? I do not presume to understand all His nuances, but wouldn't it seem to be that there is no repentance possible? The reason God gives for the death penalty ten times in Deuteronomy is to put away evil. Couldn't evil be put away just as easily by repentance?

See when we approach the death penalty or almost any penalty for that matter, we are looking at it through our flesh and not the Spirit. The purpose of a penalty in our minds is vengeance. Vengeance is fine when God does it because He is the righteous judge and ultimately all faults are against Him. But when we do it, we are doing it to satisfy _our_ lust for evil. They hurt us so we _crave_ to hurt them. We want to satisfy our lust at their expense.

But God's idea of justice between men is different. We will cover this in the case of "an eye for an eye", but His goal is to return man to the path of righteousness. You'll soon see that the Torah has little room for the idea of prison time as a sentence. Jail is exclusively punitive, but the biblical model is the criminal confessing what they have done and what that crime was to God and man. They are then given a way to make restitution. Because the person did something wrong but God loves them through us. We give him a _good_ thing to do to get back on the path of righteousness. In God's justice the goal is restoring each of us to a state of right living. The only logical reason for death then is because there is no way for this person to live out repentance. Forgiveness is the act of giving up the right to destroy someone in the hope that they will live godly (which is best for all), but forgiveness is not for the wicked ("I will not justify the wicked") because repentance is no longer possible. I could be wrong, but that is the overall message I have received from scripture.

So the death penalty is neither merciful nor unmerciful. Killing the penitent would seem to deny them the chance to do God's will by repenting and working towards restitution; while sparing the impenitent only gives them opportunity to do more evil which they will inevitably do because they are impenitent. I put to you that what is happening in John 8 is Yeshua examining and revealing who are the penitent and impenitent. He is extending mercy to the woman not despite the Torah, but because the purpose of Torah _is His purpose_ which is for her to "go and sin _no more_."

Just to wrap up the trial though. These murderers are ashamed and do depart, according to Jeremiah's prophecy. I am not sure if it is a technical detail because the aim of the Torah in this case is mercy (a weightier matter), but technically speaking by ink strokes if you will, the trial is over. Could Yeshua have stoned this woman? That is the question that is begged, and yet the question is wrong. From our church mind, we would say, "Yes, because He is actually sinless." But therein we reveal that _our hearts are just as hard as the Pharisees_. It is an incredible conviction that I am experiencing as I do this portion.

God is really teaching me, as I write this, that the reason I say "Yes, He could," is because _my heart_ is twisted. See, I can point out that the trial must be over because the Torah says that it is the accusing witnesses who must cast the first stone. Yeshua is not a witness, nor a judge, so He is "technically" incapable of casting the first stone. But don't you see? I am still looking for the "right" to stone her. My default is to say "The law gives us the right, but we'll be merciful." That stinks of human, fleshly thinking. That is the _Peh_ of man.

I say the answer is no, categorically. Yeshua could not stone and not for a technical reason; the Torah _is God's heart_. We imagine as if God's divine Instruction could ever "technically" be contrary to His will. There is no contradiction between God and His word. Yeshua cannot stone the woman not because there is a failsafe to prevent the miscarriage of justice, Yeshua cannot stone the woman because the Torah's goal is for us to live God's life, to do His righteousness, to proclaim with our every day life that יהוה is our God! Our lives are to be in the image of יהוה because we carry the name of יהוה. What we do, we do in His place. Yeshua cannot stone the woman because the Torah requires us to love יהוה and act as He acts, and יהוה will not reject the penitent!

Don't we understand yet that יהוה loves us? Don't we understand that He does not seek to destroy us? His whole purpose is to make us like Him, that we would be His people because that is the best way, the only good way. The purpose of all His work is to accomplish this. That is why Yeshua said, "Go and sin no more." The diligent and just judge saw a penitent heart and He urged her back onto the path.

### An Eye for an Eye

I get excited about this case. I know that is strange, but by the end I think you'll stop saying "I'm glad we don't live in the times of an eye for an eye." Instead you'll be saying, "I wish just we could manage that standard."

Our context begins in Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount with the beatitudes. Recall from earlier that after the beatitudes, Yeshua makes the statement that He was not here to destroy the Torah and that anyone who broke it and taught others to do so would be called least in the kingdom. After this in 5:21, Yeshua begins addressing six "heard said's". The heard said is crucial. Throughout the New Testament you have the phrase "as it was written" or "so was fulfilled what was written" or "have you never read?" This other phrase 'heard said' signals that Yeshua is addressing _oral torah_ , in other words, human interpretations held up as binding. A.k.a., tradition.

As I have said before, tradition is not bad if not binding. In fact in most churches, it is taught that Yeshua is not simply agreeing with these sayings, He is expanding them. All, except for one anyway.

Yeshua did not live in a vacuum. He was free to reference teachings of the day for correction or for comparison. We have unfortunately learned this notion that everything Yeshua said was original, as if there was no truth in the world before He said it. That is not to say all truth does not come from Yeshua, but it misleads people to make up new definitions for what He is saying rather than understanding the language He is using. An example of Yeshua doing this is the term "Abraham's Bosom". Yeshua never tells us what that means, He simply expects that we know. That makes sense if you know that in Yeshua's day Abraham's Bosom was a pre-existing idiom.

So here, Yeshua is referencing six pre-existent doctrines and seemingly agreeing with them with a few corrections. I would add all of the corrections are in keeping with Torah. As we have seen the ink strokes have God's meaning, not ours. So when Yeshua says whoever is angry with his brother without cause is in danger in the same way as someone who actually commits the act it makes sense because a commandment in Torah is something you are to put inside of you and guard. How can you make it a part of yourself not to covet your brother's things, not to hold a grudge but to forgive, and to love thy brother, while at the same time be angry without cause? Yeshua's correction of these teachings makes them line up with and simultaneously reinforce what Yeshua's Torah already said.

Likewise with lusting after a woman, getting a divorce, and loving your enemy. In a rough way of putting it, Yeshua comes down on the higher or more stringent standard on all of these interpretations. That is what most churches teach, and yet . . . there is the one odd duck. "You have heard it said 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'" On this issue churches come down the opposite way. On all the others, you have heard it said (pun intended) that Yeshua holds the higher standard that swallows up the lower standard, but in this case Yeshua completely obliterates it? And, is not this heard said actually straight out of Torah?

Things are not as you have heard it said.

All of these are Yeshua's commentary _on_ a number of doctrines, but those doctrines are _premised_ on a scripture. Yeshua's correction takes the commentary—I believe—back to the _Peh_ of the scripture so the logical thing to examine is _the scripture_. What is it that Yeshua is drawing the _Peh_ out of? The phrase an "eye for an eye" is first found in Exodus 21, a chapter on judgments. In 21:18, יהוה through Moses tells us that if two men get in a fight, and one of them ends up in the hospital—that is the Jesse translation—if he recovers enough to get out of bed, then the other combatant is not guilty, _however,_ "he shall _pay_ for the loss of his time, _and shall cause_ him to be thoroughly healed."

Not to correct scripture, but the KJV is wrong in this case. It says pay, which is true in practice, but it was from this passage that I first learned the basis of Torah is "give". The word "pay" is " _nathan_ ", give.

The subject of the Exodus passage is restitution. How do I make this right, once I have done such and such? The "I" is important because only the owner can give. The implications are profound. Remember the command from earlier about a poor man's pledge? It said do not go in and _take_ it. Was that saying you should not have? That you did not have the right to the pledge? No, it was saying wait for him to bring it out. The Torah is not about _you_ ; it is about _me_. It is about me doing what is right, not primarily about having right _done to me_ or _done upon someone else_. In the previous section, I tried to drive home the idea that God is about the way _we live_. He is concerned not with results and circumstances, but with redeeming our entire beings, completing His work of sanctifying us. When we insert take into this passage, the one who has done the injury is robbed of the opportunity to do righteousness in order to act as a redeemed person. When we lock up criminals in prison, we lock them away with their crime. Society rejects and punishes them. We do not forgive, we exact our vengeance, and neither they nor we are better for it. But the message of Torah is restitution when an injury is made. The one who injures _gives_ to make the other person whole.

Later in Exodus 21:34, God uses the phrase "make it good." The word for good there is not "tov" but " _shalam_ " from which the word "shalom" comes. It means to make safe or _complete_. This same word is used six times to describe restitutive acts. This is key. Let it sink in. The goal is restitution; restitution is to make complete.

Did you let that sink in? Go back if you have not.

This is so important because when we get to verse 21:22-25 the context is restitution, making things complete when someone has been injured. Following the case of a woman who loses her unborn child because of men striving, if no mischief (trouble, complications) follow then the man shall _give_ , if the husband presses charges, what the judge shall determine. Yet if mischief does follow (she was hurt in addition) then we shall _give_ life for life. Not _take_ ; give. This is consistent with restitution.

What about the opposing view that this is an exacting of vengeance? Once again our flesh tries to do the interpreting. If God is institutionalizing vengeance, then you really have to start questioning how God reconciles prohibiting grudge keeping or taking vengeance (Leviticus 19:18). Another problem is Leviticus 24:22 where it says there is to be one "verdict" or manner of law for everyone. So, suppose a blind man injures a seeing man's sight? If you injure the blind man's eyes, will he have lost nearly as much as the seeing man? What if a cripple paralyzes a professional athlete, can you cripple the cripple to get even? And since the injury has to be injury for injury, what if someone nicks you in the leg, but when you _take_ from him you nick too deep and cut his artery? What if his action takes a third of the health of your kidney and in your retribution you take more than a third? And how would you measure that you got it right? Of course, not only is this method impossible, the very nature of the thinking is alien to someone bearing the name of the longsuffering God.

Of course, someone might counter ask, how could this be done as restitution? Could someone back then donate an eye to replace your eye? It seems the whole command might be just so much verbiage that we cannot hope to discern. Before, we give up, let us go back to the scriptures and see if the given language reveals anything. The phrase in Exodus 21:24 is " _ayin_ (eye) _tachath_ (for) _ayin_ (eye)." Seems straight forward, but the word 'for' in English is too broad, perhaps we are confusing which use?

Moses could have used " _vav_ " which is sometimes translated _for_ but usually as "and". He could have used " _kiy_ " which can be for but is more like "because" with a causal quality. Why did he choose _tachath_? Often, it helps to find the first uses of a word in scripture to see how it should be taken in general.

Genesis 1 has many for's. Most of those are _vav_ 's, but _tachath_ appears in 1:7. Referring to the part of the waters _under_ the firmament, same in verse 9. It could be "from under" or "out of under". We get the word by itself in 2:21. After taking Eve out of Adam, He closed up the flesh _instead_ or _in the stead_ of the ribs. We are not very educated in terms of our own language, but "instead" is short for "in the stead" or "in the place", i.e., a home _steader_ is someone who makes a home of a place. A person who is _stead_ fast, holds fast to their place. So what is the place, we are talking about? The under place.

Are light bulbs beginning to come on?

We use eye for an eye as in "I lose so you lose," but look at Genesis 4:25. Seth was "instead of" Abel, same word. The idea is one of legacy, Seth stood in the legacy of Abel. He stood under him like a successor. He stood _in his place_. In 16:9, Hagar is told to put herself _under_ or _in the place_ of Sarah's hands. A couple more to broaden our vocabulary, Genesis 22:13, the ram was provided by God _in the stead_ of Isaac. Joshua 2:14, our life _instead_ of yours. See, I could have made the analogy "life for life is like $3.99 for a cheeseburger", but that just slips over it. The idea here is that something is _substituted_ for something else. Imagine if Yeshua dying in our stead meant we die _and_ he dies. Or with Rahab, "If you die, we'll die too."

There is a commiserating quality with our notion, but those do not make one person whole; they make two persons hurt. You have heard the slogan, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." That is said as mockery of this scripture, but it actually reveals the true problem of this fleshly interpretation. Vengeance does not make anyone whole. It does not make _shalam_. It is noteworthy that in the whole of scripture you do not have one person who lost their eye because they had wounded someone else's.

Yet, we have not solved the issue of restitution because, as we saw, you cannot give an eye in place of another eye. My eye cannot be _in the stead_ of yours. But, remember back to the beginning. How can the waters be in the stead of the heavens? Water and Heavens are _not the same_! How can a Seth be in place of Abel? They are _not the same._ How can a ram, take the place of Isaac? They are _not the same_. That is one of God's mysteries, but the point that I am drawing out is that two _unlike_ things can take each others place.

In Exodus 21:20-21, there is the case of the servant who is beaten and dies or does not die. This is a difficult one, which I do not understand yet. If he kills his servant, he is a murderer, but if he lives even a day, then he shall not be punished? I don't understand that, but someday it will make sense. But notice in the case of two free men, the injurer _gives_ to cover the cost of the injury. This is our first clue, because if eye for eye always was to be forced on others as wound for wound, why is not the injurer also put in the hospital? In the case of the woman who loses her child, why doesn't it say to kill the injurer's child? Instead they _give_. In the case of the bondservant, where the man dies the master is not punished, why? Because the servant _is_ his money. In other words, when you accidentally killed your servant because you beat him, you killed the money that he was in the stead of. In both of these cases something _unlike_ was exchanged for the injury. Even a literal eye for an eye would be one eye given for another unlike eye.

The point is that scripture is recognizing the potential for _substitution_ , and why is that such a strange concept to believers? We stand righteous before God because He allowed substitution. Something good given in exchange for something ruined. In Exodus 21:26-27, if a man beat his servant and knocked out a tooth or ruined an eye (any permanent damage?), then the servant goes free for his injury's sake, or literally _in the stead of_ the injury. Once again exchange, and note especially that the worth of a single tooth is equivalent to the entire debt of the bondservant. 21:30 says explicitly that even if an owner of an ox is warned that the ox tends to push with its horns, and it kills a man or woman, the owner of the ox could ransom his life by a sum of money. His money could die in his stead. Verse thirty-two says the same for a servant that is killed, and 34 says the same about digging a pit without proper safety precautions. In 21:36 it clearly states that the one whose ox kills another, when it was a habit, he shall give a living ox for a dead one.

This last couple cases show several things that add further confirmation of what eye for an eye really means. Firstly, the judgments are to make good the loss. That is the express purpose, not to make someone else hurt as well. Secondly, even though not in every command spelled out, there is an understanding that a ransom or an exchange could be made, and that makes perfect consistent sense because merely beating or killing the injurer does nothing to make the injured whole.

One seeming stray to address, though, is a re-giving of this command in Leviticus 24:19-20. There instead of give, it says "as he hath done, so shall it be done to him" (asah ken asah). This seems to explicitly call for retribution rather than restitution. However, the surrounding verses are speaking about restoring, and this is the same biblical book that says, "Do not avenge." So an explanation for this phrase's use could be to point to Judges 15:11. There Samson, after the Philistines burned to death his wife and wife's family, turned around and did a great slaughter on them. Now was the death of an innocent woman and her family the same kind of breach in Samson's eye as killing the Philistines who killed them? Clearly the burning of a by-standing woman, who seems to be merely a pawn in other people's plans, is different than killing probably armed soldiers with bare hands. So the _exchange_ was not identical (as we said that would be impossible), but at least in Samson's eyes it was _proportional_.

So when it says so shall it be done, it does not imply a contradiction of the premise of restitution nor of the command prohibiting vengeance. It is similar to when Solomon says to "answer not a fool according to his folly," in Proverbs 26:4 and then in the next verse says "answer a fool according to his folly." He is saying, don't meet folly with folly, but do meet folly with a proportional response.

Now, it is time to get back to Yeshua. When we left Matthew 5, we had seen Yeshua coming down on the more stringent side of several popular schools of thought in his time (and I would argue the same doctrines He faced then were around before and still are today). It would be easy at this point to predict that Yeshua would of course be _for_ an eye for an eye because it is Torah, His Torah. But does He?

Remember, in Matthew 5:38, Yeshua is addressing a teaching based on Torah, but not Torah itself. However, the portion of Torah that the teaching is based upon has restitution as the subject matter. Yeshua then gives four examples. A man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other. This is not a prohibition against defending yourself. If that is the case and your wife is being raped, do you believe Yeshua would have for you to hand over your daughter too? Not only does the Torah allow for self-defense (Exodus 21:13, 22:2, Deuteronomy 22:27, and Proverbs 24:11-12), it seems to be the case that your defense and the defense of others is expected, when the party under attack is innocent.

But the area of Torah alluded to in this correction is not about self-defense, it is about restitution. Remember in the case of two men striving, it does not say "When one man punches another, the struck man shall give blow for blow, and take eye for eye!" Restitution is _after_ the injuring event. I put to you that Yeshua is making a metaphor here, and the turn the other cheek is saying that when _you are in the wrong_ and someone strikes you for it, then offer them the other. Not if you are being wronged invite them to wrong you further.

Does the next question support this? Matthew 5:40, if a man sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak also. Tell me, if a judge decides against you, what is the assumption? That _you_ _were wrong._ He is talking about a penalty. Whatever, the judge decides _give beyond it._

Verse forty-one, if someone _compels_ (literally you are pressed into service), go with him twice as far. Again, the compulsion is either because you have done something wrong or you are simply subject to an order. Not subject to a criminal that broke into your house and forced you to run laps.

Verse forty-two, give to him who asks, lend to him that would borrow.

In all of these cases from restitution to compulsion of service to a simple request for a loan (I do not believe Yeshua meant for us to be unwise about this), the prevailing thought that Yeshua is addressing is that one should do the _minimum_ required, but Yeshua says do _more than_ required.

Let us go back to the Torah and the idea of restitution. Remember how we pointed out that an eye could never be given for an eye? The transplant would be impossible, and even if so, you are exchanging something that is unlike what was lost. That thing that was lost remains lost. Realize what the Torah is calling for is an _impossible_ standard. Do you think maybe that impossibility was the point? The point is that when we injure someone permanently, there is nothing we can do to make up for it. Certainly not the absurd, anti-Torah notion that God wants us to add a second injury to the first.

Nothing you can do can bring back whatever you took when you injured another. Does not Yeshua's teaching make perfect sense? Does it not agree with the _Peh_ of Torah? If you know that your "instead" can never take the place of the loss, what kind of heart would you have to have to say, "I've done enough"? How can you look at a person that you paralyzed with your car and say "I've done enough for you. We are even." That idea is sin. Am I saying that we should be burdened with guilt? Certainly not. Yeshua died for every one of our sins that we will confess and forsake.

But the just thing, the right thing, the good thing is to live and act in a way that is in the stead of the loss. What would that look like? I propose that if you took the person's legs, then you should become their legs. Make sure they get everywhere they would have gone with their own legs. If you took their sight, be their eyes. If you damaged their property replace it and make sure that all its consequences are healed. You become their servant, that is what an eye for an eye means.

The ironic thing is that most of this discussion did not start with me. This type of reasoning (though excluding Yeshua's input) was a school of thought even before Yeshua's day. It was simply buried by anti-Semitic thought and anti-Torah doctrine, even though Yeshua clearly here teaches the same thing.

If we can just get away from man's doctrine of eye for an eye and back to God's eye for an eye, we will be doing wonderfully.

##  Paul of Romans

I debated which objection to bring up, next. In an older study, from which I am borrowing many elements, I addressed circumcision, the kosher diet, and the feast days separately. However, many of those seem like a waste of time. Most of them should have been K.O.'d in the first portion of this book or in Acts. If outside of Paul's epistles we saw clearly that Torah was upheld, including dramatic examples by Yeshua, Paul's Messiah, then is it needful to address the fact that He believed in Torah observant diet? After seeing how Yeshua observed the Sabbath, made it a point to be in Jerusalem for the feasts (as did Paul in Acts), is it necessary to address whether we should keep the feasts? We have already addressed circumcision enough to know that Paul believed in it . . .

The bottom line is the very reason I started with the issue of consistency. From beginning to end the Torah is upheld, prophesied to be magnified by the Messiah, and be revived in the end times. To think that Yeshua or His Branches were taking haphazard, random, pot shots at commands is categorically absurd. Our stiff necks are showing. It is not that we _think_ those attacks were real; it is that we _want_ them to be real. And that is just an emotional problem or a sin problem, as we saw in the early objections. We think God is trying to burden us rather than believe what His word says, that He is blessing us and freeing us. If we believe Him, then if He wants a feast then logically it will bring us joy. If He says do not eat a pig or shellfish, then it must be a blessing to abstain.

Just a side thought, but I am repeatedly struck by how our view shows not only our heart but how we see God. There are two conventional views that I have heard regarding the subject of God's prohibition against pig, just for example. In the first view, there was no tangible benefit to not eating pig, God just did not want us to do it as an object lesson (what that lesson was has never been explained to me). So God simply denied something that for all tangible reasons was good; He just didn't want us to have it. I wonder where we get the idea that God does not really care about us?

In the second view, there was a health benefit because pig could not be safely prepared back then. Oh really? God could tell them the proper, meticulous way to build a tabernacle, Ark of the Covenant, Ark of Noah, carry out sacrifices, deal with leprosy, all those things . . . but He just could not find the words to tell us how to prepare a pig? Was fire cooler back in Moses's day, but it got hotter in Yeshua's day? Exactly what advancement did they have in Yeshua's day that made it safe when up until Yeshua's day it was unsafe? Did pigs evolve? Do we not realize trichinosis (a commonly suggested swine problem explanation) dies at lower cooking temperature then salmonella which chickens may carry? I cannot help but think if the commandment was for a manageable issue like a pig's diet, then why is shrimp not _more_ unclean today than it was back then since our seas are dirtier and even our scientists are telling us that sea life is more contaminated?

It simply does not make sense. Either God took it away for a lesson that none of His people have ever taken the time to figure out; or it was for a health benefit that magically resolved itself with no one being able to explain what took place or why God changed it. Why did He not make all mushrooms non-poisonous at the same time?

Those issues seem to have been dealt with enough that a person who wants the truth can see it; there is simply no reason to think those precepts _have_ changed. But the other reason I will not deal with them is because we will revisit some of them in Paul's writings. Let us start in Romans.

### Romans 1

In previous years, I might have skipped over setting the stage, but here I think it is important. Many scholars place the writing at the time Paul is preparing to go to Jerusalem to bring offerings for the needs of the saints there, Romans 15:24-25. This puts us in the neighborhood of Acts 18-21. That means it was in the same neighborhood of a vow that he had taken and completed according to Torah in Acts 18:18, and before Paul agrees with the Elders of Jerusalem to make a show of _keeping_ Torah in Acts 21. So it is important to remember what kinds of issues the congregation and especially Paul were dealing with at those times (somewhere in the neighborhood of A.D. 33-63).

We will move somewhat quickly through Romans—this is not intended to be an exhaustive study. In chapter one, among those things which Paul condemns as unrighteous (verses 18-32) all of them are listed in Torah; worshipping idols, lack of loving God, homosexual conduct, harlotry (fornication), covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, deceit, tale bearing, slander, disobedience to parents, breaking covenants, unmercifulness. In fact there are certain terms in there that have no meaning by themselves. For example, wickedness and inventors of evil things, these are terms that have general ideas but without a standard it is just your word against mine. To a Baptist having a beer can be wicked. You need a previous, established standard, to know what these things look like. Speaking of standard, it is often taught that this chapter is speaking to pagans, and saying how they can clearly see the nature of God from the creation. However, not only did Paul say these people "knew God" and glorified him not, but also knew the judgment of God that the doers of such things were worthy of death. Who knew? The people who had met with God and rejected Him. Yes, the pagans are without excuse, but I believe this is speaking to the wicked that received the covenant, or grew up surrounded by it and forsook it. Why talk to the pagans about their evil conduct? Sinners sin, no surprise. The worse case is the person who should be just.

### Romans 2

Continuing his thought, Paul says those who are without law and sin shall still perish without it, and those that sin in it will also perish. A couple things are important in here, namely if God still holds sin as wrong and worthy of condemnation (verse eight), then breaking Torah is still wrong because that is what sin is. 1 John said sin is transgressing the Torah. Notice verse thirteen. Why is it there? No really, think about it. The modern interpretation reads sarcasm into the words of Paul instead of taking them as they are. He just got done saying sin will be judged whether you are in the Torah or out of it, but then he says parenthetically that the doers and _not_ the hearers _shall be_ justified. We have been taught that Paul is really saying (with eyes rolling and a snarky voice), "You'll be judged whether in the law or outside the law for your sins, because you _know_ that only the perfect keepers of the law are justified, which is impossible."

Instead of sincerely holding up what the Torah teaches, Paul is alleged to be lampooning it as a ridiculous impossibility. And if you really believe that, how does its impossibility justify not doing what you know is a righteous standard when you do have it within your reach to do?

Unless . . . you think it was a stupid standard in the first place. Careful, our flesh is showing.

Does not Paul teach in 2:14-15 that the gentiles _when they do_ the things contained in the Torah by nature, that they show the work of the Torah in their hearts? And does he not show those deeds are affirmed by conscience? Are these the statements of a person who thinks that the standard has changed, or one that thinks merely possessing the Torah is not a source of justification?

One more thing, notice that Paul teaches it correctly. He does not say "doers of the law justify themselves," he says "doers of the Torah _shall be justified_." What does Torah teach? That we justify ourselves or that it is God who justifies us (if we be not wicked)? The answer is God; we _receive_ the work which is exactly what Paul teaches.

This is incredibly important. The enemy's weapon in the New Testament is not the Torah, it is tradition. This cannot be overstated. Remember we are in the time of Acts, sometime between the Jerusalem council that rejected the Pharisaic teaching that one had to be circumcised and keep Moses to be saved; and the Jerusalem council that instructed Paul to make a sacrifice in the Temple to demonstrate that he kept Torah.

What is the nature of tradition that is such a deadly thing? Bearing in mind, I am speaking of tradition that binds. All personal worship is in fact, personal tradition. If you like to sing old hymns, that is your tradition, there is no reason to do it other than that it pleases you to please God to do so. If, on the other hand, you do it because you have to, or tell someone else they have to, then it becomes something else. Why is it so deadly? We have already seen that it divides, and that it gave the Devil a foothold with Eve, but what is the essence of it?

In Luke 18:9-14, Yeshua tells the parable of two men. The publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee is proud, and lists his accomplishments; the publican humbles himself and begs for mercy. Why did Yeshua tell this parable? Verse 9 says for them that " . . . trusted _in themselves . . . "_ The nature of a tradition is that it is something we can _do_. It is a _possible_ standard, at least for a time and season. Notice that Pharisee did not point to anything that he did not do? Maybe something about how he has a hard time remembering that יהוה sanctifies us, not ourselves? See, when we say I have to (by tradition) go to church every Sunday, we transfer authority in our lives from God—who says do not add or diminish—to ourselves. Well . . . if you have not figured this out . . . we are weak. Our flesh is weak, and when we move from God's authority to our own that is all we have. _God never guarantees the power to keep tradition._ Not once does He say that by our traditions He will sanctify us.

But at the same time, because we _can_ for a season do this tradition, we feel safe and right. Let me tell you a story that was told to me. There was a family that taught modesty. Now I believe in modesty, but modesty is a behavior and a mindset that flows out of Torah. It is _not_ inches on a hem. A man or woman taking a shower in private is more modest than a woman in a head-to-toe burqa leaning against a married man and inviting him into her bed. God had a prophet once who walked around butt-naked for three years, Micah did as well for time, as did Saul and a company of prophets. The difference is _why_ you are doing it. And it covers far more than what you wear or don't wear. It is conduct. It is the heart.

This family went to a swimming area where one of the boys saw a girl in a bikini. The boy proceeded to have a meltdown saying, "I hate her." All because she was wearing a bikini. Remember, the verse in Psalms, 119:165? Great peace have all they that love Torah, nothing shall offend them? When you know the Torah, when you love it (because it is God's Word), what someone else does may anger you or grieve you, but it will not hurt your peace and it will not make you to stumble.

That is why, in honesty, I disagree with making modesty—on the basis of clothes—such a big deal. I do not mean to simply dismiss that consideration, a parent must consider what their children are going through and train them accordingly; but let us not think for a second that it is a visible patch of skin that _causes_ anyone to stumble. I am not saying to linger in a situation where you feel tempted; I am saying temptation is an opportunity to come closer to God, and that is how we should respond. "Father, I feel tempted by this thing. I know you are the giver of every perfect gift, so what I desire is something of you. Show me what that is. Teach me that you will provide for all my desires." Yeshua did not run _from_ the wilderness because He was tempted there, the Spirit lead Him there _to be_ tempted. Work on the heart; the eyes will take care of themselves.

Do we expect to walk into the world and not be grieved by their conduct? If you will only go to the places where people dress, talk, and act modestly, then you are already defeated. The Devil can keep you out of places where hurting people need God simply by placing an object of offence at the gate. The power of God is not manifest in ignorance of what the world does or by avoiding its temptations; it is manifest in overcoming them. A woman in a bikini is no big deal because God sanctifies me. A drunk is no big deal. A cussing sailor is no big deal. Their sin has no power over me.

I tell this story of the family, the boy, and the bikini girl because that boy's hatred at the time was stirred up by a tradition. Even if she was being immodest, she had no power over him if he was in Messiah. Yet, there is no commandment of God that defines a bikini by its nature as immodest. I would not encourage it, but it is not a sin. What was the result? The boy lashed out, actually breaking a commandment because she had offended his tradition. The devil used his family's tradition to get him to actually transgress. And what about the girls in that family? Or the girls in similar families? Do they not look at that same girl in the way that the Pharisee looked at the publican?

_I_ don't wear that, _I'm_ glad I don't dress like that. And behind it, the secret thought, _she is not a good person, and I am_. A tradition gives us something to look at ourselves in our flesh and call ourselves good. I read my bible every day. I never drink. I give 20% of my earnings. I never wear that. I don't watch that. I don't have friends who talk like that.

I go to church three times a week sounds an awful lot like I fast twice a week. Tradition gives us something to boast about. When we get to Galatians this will be all the more apparent but the reason the pharisaic brothers liked the idea of requiring an orthodox circumcision (and possibly re-circumcision) was because it moved the source of justification away from God and Yeshua's blood into themselves. "Sure, Yeshua died on the cross for my sins, but I'm a good Jew."

The poison of a binding tradition is that it tells us to justify ourselves, divide us from others, and changes the Word of God. A binding tradition is by nature sin.

Now in the case of many of the believers coming out of Pharisaic background, there was the tradition of the proselyte which prescribed the rites and order that a person had to come through to _become_ a Jew. A converted gentile. Now, does the Torah prescribe a rite of conversion? No. You stop what you were doing and turn towards God. Incline your ear. In short, repent. That is all that is needed. I suppose that is why it irks me when I here believers trying to define the conversion of other believers. "Yes, I understand you're saved, but were you born again? Did you _acknowledge_ that you were a sinner and _ask_ Jesus to come into your heart and be Lord?" Or, "I heard you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but what that really means is being baptized in the name of Jesus. Did the preacher say 'in the name of Jesus' or something else?" Or "I haven't heard you speak in tongues, yet . . . "

As I said, there are no new doctrinal problems. This is the same thing that some of the brothers were doing back then. God is not complicated. He does not need six forms filled out in triplicate and sent to redundant departments to "get you saved". For that matter, when people tell me you have to be baptized with the words "In Jesus name," I can't help thinking, "There was no "J" sound. If God needs you to get His name phonetically right then everyone who dies in Jesus is burning in hell." See the flesh poking its head? It is everywhere isn't it?

The problem back then was exactly the same. God has very big arms and He will not fail to catch anyone who calls on Him, whether they know His proper name or not. 1 Peter 3 says that Yeshua went and preached to the dead. God bends over backwards to save the humble while no amount of posturing and saying the right words will save the proud.

This is what Paul is dealing with in Romans, and I would argue most of his epistles but especially Romans and Galatians. Continuing in Romans 2, there is more of what we have learned to read as sarcasm on Paul's part, verses seventeen through twenty. "You rest in the Torah? You tool!" The alternative would be to admit that Paul is serious when he says—in the literal—" . . . [you] do know the will, and do approve the distinctions, being instructed out of Torah." The alternative is to say that Paul is being honest that the Torah teaches how to separate good from bad, clean from unclean, right from wrong.

However, Paul is saying in 2:21 through the end of the chapter, that when they talk about resting in Torah, they are talking about "this is our doctrine". Remember he said, hearers are not justified but doers. A person can say they are a sinner and still be justifying themselves. Remember that Pharisee with the publican, he tithed but rather than acknowledging that God is generous, he boasted of his goodness. Rather than learning from his fasting that he was dependent on God and needed Him near, look how good he is! Did not the Jews in Isaiah's time make sin offerings and never repented of their sins? Enough with it! God said. It is abomination take it away!

We do the same thing, we confess that we are sinners, and often in our pride debase ourselves even beyond humility. So we acknowledge that we are imperfect and need salvation, and cannot be saved by works, and yet at the same time tell some that if they don't speak in tongues—or get baptized the way my church does it, or say the right words in the right order, and have an emotional experience—without _those works_ you cannot be saved.

Likewise, Paul is rebuking the group of people that say "I have the Torah, I have the Torah! I'm a good Jew, even though I don't do everything right! I am a son of Abraham! But you, if you don't go through my process, you can't be saved." And Paul says that יהוה is blasphemed through this conduct of making a boast in God while at the same time breaking his Torah, even if you are a Jew. Or to put it another way, God is blasphemed because you claim God's holiness for your own while breaking His Torah even if you _do call on the name of Christ._ Remember the single greatest cause of atheism? Christians who acknowledge Yeshua with their lips (boast of God) then deny Him their lifestyle (break Torah). Of course this leads to blasphemy! If Torah is everything good that יהוה says it is, do you think that the heart of an unbeliever doesn't attest to that goodness? Do they not see the absence of love that Torah commands and think, hypocrite? Do they not see the lack of forgiveness and grace commanded by Torah and think, hypocrite? Do they not see the Christian businessman who is pushing an unjust business deal? Paul is dealing with the same thing, only the names have been changed. Except we do not even teach Torah.

An interesting note at the end of chapter two. Sometimes it is helpful to look at multiple translations and especially, gradually, to become familiar with the words in the more original languages; Hebrew especially, but also Greek. The Septuagint is especially helpful because it allows you to take a Greek word into the Tanakh and find out what Hebrew word meaning the Greek translator may have had in mind. In the case of Romans 2:26, the Greek word for righteousness is more often translated _ordinance._ And when taking it back to the Hebrew carries that same meaning. It means a just ruling. So what Paul is actually saying is "when the uncircumcised upholds the just rulings, won't his uncircumcision count as circumcision?" Paul demonstrates a couple of things with this statement. First, when you do right even if you don't know everything, God credits you for the lack, 1 John 1:7. This is consistent with Torah and the Tanakh as a whole. How many Kings are there in Kings and Chronicles of whom it said, "did that which was right in יהוה's eyes . . . " and yet at the same time said, " . . . yet he did not remove the high places." Close action does not count, but the posture of the heart does.

The second thing, Paul upholds as _good_ that the uncircumcised keeps the ordinances. He upholds as _good_ the one who does so and is therefore a Jew on the inside. "Jew" comes from Judah, praise of Yah. He even says that their uncircumcision will be _counted_ as circumcision; why would that be a plus unless being circumcised was still good?

One of the biggest breakthroughs for me was when I understood this verse in conjunction with the phrase "cut off". The Torah does call for capital punishment for certain unrepentant behaviors. But though the two often go hand in hand, cut off does not mean the same thing. For example, look through the chronology of Yeshua and you will find that Jehoiakim is missing. In Jeremiah 22:30, speaking of the wicked Jehoiakim (some mistakenly read this as concerning Jeconiah, but the word is _to_ his father) יהוה says to _write_ him childless. So when you come to Yeshua's chronology in Matthew, you find no Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim, who had a son by the way, is stricken from the record and his son is given to his father Josiah (a very good king). When it speaks of being cut off, it is "from Israel" or "from the congregation" or "from the people". This is not speaking of death (though that too), but they have been counted as _not a part of God's people_. Remember, when Yeshua said, "You do the works of your father, the Devil?" That is what He is talking about. If you act like the Devil and never repent, then you will not be a part of God's people.

So Paul is agreeing with this. The imperfect but obedient person who seeks to do righteousness is part of God's people as much as any faithful Jew, and more than any unfaithful Jew. All of this, again, is consistent with Torah. Do you begin to see this? Paul is not anti-Torah, at this writing he is on his way to Jerusalem where he will make an exhibition of himself including sacrifice to prove this very thing. But even without that we can see his teaching is favorable towards Torah.

### Romans 3

What is the good of being a physical Jew? Of being of the circumcised? Paul's answer?

Much in every way!

Now stop right there. Paul just said—in Romans no less—that the heritage of God's physical people (including circumcision) _is_ important. Listen to Paul say much _in every way_. And the chief reason? They were entrusted with the oracles of God; take that back to the Septuagint and the word first shows up in the Torah as the "words of God." In other words, the advantage of the physical Jews is that they were first given the Torah.

Yet this is also a chapter where people begin to have trouble. Some of Paul's difficult words are here, so let us start by remembering. We have covered a wealth of scripture and it has all been pro-Torah. Recall that the person speaking will after the writing of this publicly proclaim, in action, that he is walking orderly and _not_ teaching against the Torah or its customs. Remember that this is the man whom Peter said had his words twisted. Remember this man, Paul, was falsely accused of the very thing that some misperceive in this chapter. And lastly, in this very book the author has shown Torah as good, keeping it in a place of praiseworthiness. The default position of interpretation is that the Apostle of the Messiah will, like his Master, magnify Torah according to the _Peh_ (according to what God meant).

Romans 3:19 says that what the Torah says, it says to those that are under the Torah. That is an interesting phrase . . . under the Torah . . . who is under the Torah? Have we seen this phrase before? This phrase will become important, but this particular sighting is a misnomer. The more common rendering is _in_ the Torah ( _en ho nomos_ ). That will be important because what Paul says here is that the Torah speaks to those who are in Torah (literally, the connotation is resting) rather than those who are under Torah ( _hupo ho nomos_ ). I believe this will be important because he does not say the Torah speaks to those _under_ Torah, but to those _in_ Torah.

Is the first a phrase from Torah? Not exactly. The first Septuagint reference for "in" is Genesis 1:1. In Hebrew "in" is the prefix of the letter " _bet_ " ("B" sound). Genesis (origins) is from the Hebrew " _b'reisheit_ " ( _in_ beginning). However, each letter is also a picture in ancient Hebrew. _Bet_ is a house and by connotation a family. Whole teachings have been done about the fact that the Bible does not begin with _aleph_ (first letter, a symbol of strength), but with _bet_. So if we were to imagine "in the Torah" in Hebrew it would be " _b'torah_." A house of Instruction. So Paul says that what the Torah says, it says to the house of Torah. Who is the house of Torah? God's people, the people who keep God's instructions. Not the perfect, but the keepers (since all are proved under sin, 3:9). The Torah is not to the sinners but to the house of God, and it is to the house of God that the Torah (euphemistically including the Psalms) says, "no one is righteous."

And what did we find in the Torah? From the beginning, יהוה sanctifies you. Who needs sanctification except those who have sins? And who is יהוה speaking to except His house? Paul is saying is what Torah has always said. Torah tells us that we are not justifying ourselves by obedience, but being justified by faith. That is why he can say "therefore by the _deeds of the Torah_ shall no flesh be justified." This is not new. It is basic. That is why we need a righteousness that comes apart from our deeds, God's righteousness.

Yet does the knowledge that righteousness must come from another source, remove our responsibility to live Godly? 3:20 says that Torah is the knowledge of sin. How many of us will say the Torah is done away with and yet insist that we should root out the sin from our lives? How could the woman caught in adultery 'go and sin no more' if you insist on throwing away the standard that tells her what sin is? If our unrighteousness (breaking Torah) makes God's righteousness magnified, should we be more unrighteous? Romans 3:8. Indeed, how can our unrighteousness, which is known by the Torah, commend God's righteousness if we do not have the Torah? God forbid. At the end of chapter 3, having agreed with what the Torah already said, Paul asks, does our faith make the Torah useless? Void? To cease?

The opposite, it is established. Paul in his own words agrees with Moses and makes sense of the ritual he is about to observe in Acts 21, but how many times have you heard Romans 3 taught and do not remember ever hearing 3:31?

### Romans 4

In this single book by a single God, the sub-contracted writer, Paul, continues a single message in his single letter expounding on the idea from chapter three. He brings to mind the story of Abraham (which, by the way, is in the Torah). How Abraham was counted righteous on the grounds of faith and that we are his seed. As his seed, since all seed produces after its own kind (Genesis 1:11-12), we too are reckoned righteous on the grounds of faith. This reminds us that righteousness was _before_ Torah. Paul is right to point out that _on the grounds of keeping Torah_ all are doomed. But that is why it is important to remember Paul is addressing tradition. Torah never said that you were made righteous by keeping it, _tradition says that_. Tradition justifies the self; Torah does not. The promise was always by faith.

This is a good time to recall what Paul said at the end of chapter three. Verse twenty-nine through thirty declares both Jew and Gentile are reconciled to God by the same means of faith. In four, Paul is narrating the story of our faith. Ask yourself this, if salvation was always by faith . . . then why did the saints of old keep Torah? If the argument is that it is faith that saves and therefore we don't need the Torah (even though Paul just said the opposite), then logically there was no reason for the Israelites to keep it in the past since they were also _not_ saved by it.

The reason God's people have always kept the Torah is because it is the Instruction of their Father. It was always for our blessing, for our wisdom, for a good life, for a free life, and because it shows whose children we are. And since it was never about being righteous but _doing_ righteousness, it is still as relevant today as ever.

So when we get to chapter 4, Paul is not arguing against Torah. He is arguing against mis-use of Torah. Paul's ongoing fight is with this idea that you can justify yourself by your works. It is never about what the standard is or about how we ought to live our lives. Do you see him ever take up the cause of promiscuity? Deceit? Adultery? Homosexuality? Murder? Idolatry? Does he do a page or two sermon on how we should roast a pig and work on the Sabbath? No. Not once does he make the case for _living_ by a different standard, but always he is against the tradition of self-justification.

### Romans: the Later Highlights

As I said, this is not an exhaustive study of Romans, so we can pick up the pace and catch the highlights. Most of this really is not hard to understand when you assume Paul would be consistent with the rest of scripture instead of a hypocritical apostle who denies most scripture while walking around saying he accepts it.

In Romans 6:1, after repeatedly saying that Torah gives the knowledge of sin and that sin is imputed only when Torah is present, Paul says shall we sin? In other words, the question is shall we break the Torah that grace may abound? And all God's people said? No! Paul in the middle of Romans says stop breaking the Torah!

Zoom in again on 6:14. We shall not sin (break the Torah) _because_ we are not _under the law_. _Hupo ho nomos_. Earlier we saw, the Torah speaks to those in the House of Instruction. But what is this other phrase? Yeshua never uses it, neither do any of the other Apostles—with the exception of James. James 2:9 uses it, but it applies to someone who is _violating_ Torah not someone who is keeping it. If as we did with _en ho nomos_ , we take _hupo ho nomos_ back into the Hebrew, we find a familiar word, _tachath_. You will remember this word from "eye for an eye." It means _in stead of_ , or filling the place of, but also sometimes with the connotation of being beneath. The eye that was for the eye was not the original it was a substitute serving under the original. The divided waters were _under_ the firmament.

Paul is saying the Torah is not _on top of you_. We are not under the house, we are _in_ the house. The Torah does not speak to those who are under it, but those that are in it. What does it mean to be "under" the Torah? Firstly, notice that Paul says we are not in the dominion of sin and _therefore_ are not under the Torah. Recall, everything we have heard about Torah. Does anything in the scriptures suggest that the Torah gives sin power over you? If so, why would יהוה swear as part of His new covenant to put it in your heart? Why would He promise that it would flow out from Jerusalem? Why would His Messiah magnify it if Messiah came to free us from sin? Why did all of His prophets praise it as right and good and a blessing and a tree of life?

Remember, remember, remember. Why do you suppose God had us set up memorials in the year? Stones along the road? Talk about this always with your children? Why do we have the fringes on our clothes and the commandments on our door posts? Because we forget. Over and over, God tells us things in a many different ways and still we forget. It is this forgetfulness that gives our enemy so much power in our lives.

The Torah is never said to give sin dominion over our lives. In fact it is in keeping the Torah that יהוה tells us we testify of His sanctifying work. It is in keeping it that we produce fruit of His work, and it is by it that He leads us into wide open spaces.

So being _under_ Torah is to be in the dominion of sin. Why is that? Because who does Torah speak to? Those inside the house. But _why_ is Torah given? 1 Timothy 1:8-9 says the Torah is good if used lawfully (according to the _Peh_ ). But it is not made for the righteous, but the unrighteous. Tell me, who needs the knowledge of sin? The one who is sinless or the sinful? If Torah is knowledge and conviction of sin, and also the means by which God's grace abounds, then it is the sinner who needs the Torah.

Why is it that the Torah cannot pass until Heaven and Earth pass away? I do not believe that prophecy of Yeshua was saying the Torah would never pass, but that it would pass after the Heaven and Earth had. Why? What happens then? Because who will live on the New Heavens and New Earth? It will be a place wherein dwells righteousness, where no one will need to be taught to know יהוה for we shall _all_ know Him. And at that time, where does Jeremiah say the Torah will be? In our hearts. There will be no need for the jots and tittles because it will be in hearts, hands, and feet. The Torah in ink will pass when it has been magnified by being in each beating heart.

It passes away because there is only righteousness, and who was the Torah not made for? Who has no need of the knowledge of sin? Those who have no trace of it. Why do you suppose Paul is always harping on being dead to sin? On mortifying our flesh? Because when we are dead, we are separate from sin. But as separate from sin, we are living Torah. Yeshua did not come to make us ignorant of sin, but to give us power over it.

This is the great mystery, the awesome truth of Messiah. The church has pretty much convinced everyone that the goal of Messiah was to make us forget that we were sinners while we continue to sin! But the truth is that He came to give us victory _over_ sin. You are only _under_ Torah if you are in the dominion of sin. If you walk in disobedience then you are under Torah instead of _in_ Torah. The simplest explanation is that law only comes down on those who impenitently break it; and who is breaking it but the person who thinks they are justified of themselves? Who is the one breaking it but the one who is adding traditions to it to judge others?

Another connotation of "under" is subservience. Tell me, did יהוה ever say that we were to serve the Torah? That we were to worship the Torah? No, we worship and serve only the _Giver_ of the Torah. We are not here to worship it and glorify it as in truth some have, but we are to _recognize_ it as the truth from God and worship Him for it. It is like when you marry your spouse. No matter how wonderful the other person is, God did not give them to you for an idol but as a gift which you receive with joy. Joy that stirs up yet more love for the Giver. So this state of being "under" is an unhealthy relationship. It is sin, and is contrary to Torah. It is not that living the Torah is wrong (God forbid as Paul said), it is our relationship to it that is wrong (sound familiar?).

Romans 7, Paul makes the previous point. Paul talks about this marriage, and how when we are dead we are free to be married to another. The objection that some mis-glean out of this is that we are dead therefore we are no longer to live Torah. But as we just saw, _we were never supposed to be married to the Torah_. It is an illegitimate unhealthy relationship that Paul is correcting. One which was never supposed to exist. That is the stake to drive home, Yeshua did not die to free us from His instruction which He gave for good. He died to take down every authority that sets itself up against the knowledge (the knowing) of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). And that is what is being discussed. How can you _marry_ the Torah? You (not God) have to give it authority in your life that it never had.

Perhaps, I can make this clearer by analogy.

Have you ever heard of going through the motions at church? The guy comes, smiles at the greeter, sits in his pew, sings along, nods his head at the sermon, then leaves. Usually frowning at the end because he had something else he would rather have been doing. It is a common practice, and it is a common practice to denounce that man as "going through the motions". What is it that it means "going through the motions"? Is it not that his heart is not in it? If his heart is not in it, than by definition why is he there? To serve the expectations of people, either himself or another. He is not there for God. He may not even realize this. We are not talking about the guy who is in a desert place searching for God and that is why _he_ is there. That guy is not going through the motions; he is seeking. We are talking about the guy who, might even be a Christian, is just coming and he has no internal reason for it.

In a sense, this guy is married to the church, to the organization, the cluster of people. That is what he is serving. He may even serve the body. He always helps out at the church functions, but the real reason he does it is for the other people. Recall, that is the defining distinction between the outward Jew and the inward Jew (Romans 2:29). It is also the reason Yeshua had so many problems with the religious elite, (Mark 7:8, Luke 16:15, John 12:43), it was the manifest problem in Peter when he did not want Yeshua to be crucified (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33). The reason we make traditions is to justify ourselves, but not to ourselves (we see through our own veneer too easily, which is why we hide our real selves like Adam and Eve with fig leaves). We justify ourselves to other people. We hope that if we can convince them that we are holy, that maybe they will convince us that we are holy. Binding tradition is self-justification and it is the fear of men.

Now with the motions-guy, do we teach, "Since you're dead, you are now free from going to church and able to be married to another"? Of course not, we tell the guy, "Get your heart in order, and come to church seeking and worshipping God!" Yet, we conclude that Paul is not telling us to correct the relationship, but to stop the symptomatic behavior.

The thing I keep trying to drive home is that this whole attitude, this being married to Torah, is not _in_ Torah. There is a double meaning in that. It is neither found written in the letter according to the _Peh_ and therefore is not something you learned _in_ the House of Torah. My point is that if you listen with intent to obey, then you would not be in this mess in the first place because it is not somewhere God led you. And if God did not bring you to a marriage with Torah, then who did?

Ding, ding, ding!

Just coming out of his analogy about being married to the wrong person and then them dying, we have Romans 7:5, "For when we _were_ in the _flesh_ . . . " (emphasis mine). Self-justification and the fear of men does not come from God, it comes from us. The problem has not, nor ever will be, the Torah; it has always been us. We have to understand that a good tree brings forth good fruit, and a bad tree, bad fruit. In our flesh, we cannot make anything good because there is no good in us (Romans 7:18). If you look in the Torah with your flesh, you will see flesh looking back at you.

So yes, when you are in the flesh if you try to keep the Torah, since you are not plugged into God, then your flesh will simply sin by the Torah. Romans 7:6, so when we cease from Torah, what do we cease? Does he mean we go out and destroy every copy of Torah we can? We can't just plug in any definition we like, we have to find the definition that fits the context. He just told us "when we were in the flesh . . . ", which was the spiritual truth of the analogy of the wife in the previous marriage. So when we cease, we are ceasing from that flesh created marriage to Torah. We are ceasing from living it through the flesh, which is a life of living by the letter applied by the flesh.

If Paul had meant for us to stop obeying Torah, then why would he teach us that we _should serve_ in Spirit? If the standard is wrong, then throw out the standard, but he does not say that; he says do it a different way. God's way. How else do you make sense of verses seven through ten? How can the Torah not be sin if it produces sin? Bad fruit comes from a bad tree. The answer is in the last verse, " . . . was found _by me_ for death." And in contrast the Torah is holy, and _just_ , and good (Romans 7:12). I do not understand how we can read that verse, and not understand that Paul is not negating holiness, justice, and goodness, but teaching us by what power it is accomplished.

It is hard to see Paul's words without centuries of church doctrine abusing them, but that was why it was so important to establish the consensus of scripture and the lack of God's prophetic words that Torah would pass. Once you have that consensus, Paul not only makes sense, but his message really comes through. Think of it this way. If Paul never meant to do away with Torah (as his actions and his words now agree), then Paul has been misunderstood. That means his true message, his heart, his work, has been hidden from so many. What would the congregation of Messiah be like, if we did understand his words? His teaching that we can only do holiness, justice, and goodness through the power of God? That in our own strength we create only death? Would the crusades have happened? Would the inquisition have happened?

What more needs to be said in Romans? This is the heart of it. 7:13, "Was then that which is good [Torah] made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good [Torah]; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Torah was given because we broke it. We were ignorant children running around smashing the china, losing Dad's tools, and playing in mud that was really run-off from a broken sewer line. We got hurt inside and outside, sick, and frustrated. And we had no idea why. The world our Father gave us was hurting us. So Father told His eldest son Yeshua to start holding class in the days of Moses (and a little in those of Abraham and Noah). He started to teach us . . . to _give_ us instruction . . . so that we knew mud could be fun, but figure out whether it was made from clay and rain, or feces and urine. He told us you cannot build a tree fort if you've lost all of the hammers. You would have to eat on the ground and get sick if you smashed all of the plates. And none of your friends would stick around if you kept shoving them. Somehow you never knew this, though somewhere inside it seemed familiar. Torah was not the problem, it was describing the problem, and now that this cancer inside you was exposed it reacted to defend itself. It used the commandment against you.

Not just in making you obstinate (which is only one side of the coin), but after Yeshua's class you thought about the rules and you forgot about your big brother, and you forgot about your Father. It was more important what a big boy or big girl you had become. You saw someone else playing in mud, and you thought, "I'll go teach him." He was doing alright, it was clay, and he kept Dad's tools together, but . . . you know what . . . you figured you'd help him out by telling him not to play with mud that was on the other side of that road because you knew there was a sewer line over there. You told him to only take a tool if you were there to make sure he used it right and put it back. "Boy, I'm doing pretty good. I've got everything organized." Now, when you see someone on the other side of the road or even touching the dishes, you think, "I'm glad I'm not like them."

See how that works? Paul did. In chapter seven he has been talking as _when we were in the flesh_ , verse 14, "The Torah is spiritual; but I am _carnal_ , sold _under_ sin." You might add then that another descriptor for being _under_ the Torah is being _under_ sin. In the verses that follow, Paul makes it clear he _desires_ to do this good thing that is Torah, but it is the sin inside him that wars against the Torah of God, which he finds delightful in his inmost being (7:22). Paul is not glad that Yeshua has freed him from Torah, he is glad that he is freeing him _to_ God's Torah. In the closing of chapter seven, he says with his heart (or understanding), his self serves the Torah of God, but it is the flesh that serves sin.

Chapter eight continues this. If taken out of context it does seem to assault the Torah, but in context, Paul is continuing his assault on trying to serve in the strength of flesh because out of the flesh is _another_ Torah, one of sin and death. Notice 8:3-4, "[Torah] was weak _through the flesh_ , God sending his Son . . . _condemned sin in the flesh_ : that the _righteousness of the Torah might be fulfilled_ in us, who walk _not after the flesh_ , but _after the Spirit._ " How is it that we have people preaching that you should forsake and shun the righteousness _of_ the Torah, when those who walk after the Spirit, fulfill it? Did not the Messiah, whom Paul served, tell us that He had come to _fulfill_ the Torah? Are we not to be in His image? Did He not say those who break Torah and teach others to do so would be least in the Kingdom? It should not be a surprise that Paul is saying the same thing; it should be unthinkable that he would say anything different.

Romans 8:7-8, the carnal or flesh mind is enmity against God, why? _Because_ it is not subject to the Torah of God. Read what he is saying apart from doctrinal eyes, the reason the flesh is an enemy of God is _because_ it is not subject to Torah and cannot be. Being contrary to Torah is not spirituality, it is enmity with God.

Romans 8:12-15 Paul says we are not debtors to the flesh so stop living like it. And this Spirit which does fulfill the Torah is the Spirit of adoption. The spirit of the flesh is the bondage. The lie that Torah is the bondage is also the original lie . . . "Ye shall not surely die, for God doth know that in the day ye eat . . . " Sound familiar? Try it paraphrased "God's instruction is not for you good. It is just His way of keeping you in bondage. You don't want to be in bondage do you?" We have no new doctrines, and the Devil has no new lies.

There is not much left to say in Romans that is not simply answered with the understanding that Paul is talking about the flesh versus the Spirit, not the Spirit versus the Torah—as if there could be such a contradiction. Romans 9:30-32 would be a place to stop and smell the truth. 10:2-4, is another, "They . . . going about to establish _their own righteousness_ . . . " Without becoming exhaustive, there is more than enough to demonstrate on behalf of the verses we skip.

One last place, a little objection, hardly worth noting in light of the rest. In chapter 13, Paul gives some practical advice, most of which is to be found in Torah, and then in 14 says some things that have been taken out of the context of a man who denied teaching against Moses and the customs of Torah. 14:1, do not to receive a person of weak faith into doubtful disputations. In other words, do not force hard doctrinal discussions on someone of weak faith. Then Paul seems to say that it does not matter what you eat.

A brief study of Torah will show you find that "foods" that are unclean are called "unclean beasts", and things that are clean are called "food". This is not hard to understand. For example, if I put dog dung on your plate you would be appalled and say, "That's not food." Even though it may be served on a plate you know that it is not food because someone taught you that. Well, God has taught what food is, and unclean things are never food. So either you assume that Paul is saying there is no difference between steak and dog crap, or you believe that he is saying if it is food (God defined) then it is ok to eat, but the weak in faith do not understand that. I think knowing Paul and the entire book of scripture we know which meaning he intends.

In verse 5, he seems to say all days are the same. This is similar to the one before it. The key word is "day". One man _esteems_ one _day_ above another. Tell me, who esteemed the Sabbath? God esteemed the Sabbath. God is the one who sets days _apart_. And those days He does set apart, are not days ( _yom_ ) they are appointments ( _mo'ed_ ) which happen on days ( _yom_ ), Leviticus 23. Confusing this is like saying you do not esteem Tuesday any different than Wednesday, even if Tuesday happens to be the day your wife gets in from the airport. If you want a happy reunion, you had better esteem the appointment differently. Paul is not talking about the Sabbath or any of God's feasts, which are appointments. He is talking about Wednesday night prayer meetings. Birthdays. Or for that matter, worship on Sundays. יהוה did not call for it. You are free to participate as you will, but don't judge anyone else because they do or do not do it.

So the bottom line? Paul in the context of who Paul is, in the time that elapsed between the middle and end of Acts, the book of Romans makes sense as a pro-Torah book. Not only that, but it has a more clear meaning than it had before we looked at it. Since he is not a heretic against God's Torah, we find that he is a champion against the flesh. He is denouncing those who put works as part of salvation. He is saying no, you do not need to keep Torah to be saved, nor do you have to be baptized with certain English words. You do not need to attend church in a certain denomination. You do not need to take communion weekly. You do not need to speak in tongues, or do anything else which may be righteousness to do but done outside of the Spirit of God is simply flesh. Righteousness remains righteousness, but it can never be righteousness to justify yourself. It can never be righteousness to condemn another because they do not keep your tradition or even because they have failed to keep what is righteousness.

Rather, as the Torah teaches, justification was always by faith and can only be by faith, but the point of that faith is to live as Messiah did. A Messiah who, as God, gave us His instructions in Holy Scriptures by the mouth of His prophet Moses for our good. Instructions which our inward man actually delights in. Remember the Torah which told us not to eat pig (for our good) which for a time we may disagree with (after awhile, the idea of eating pig becomes repugnant, trust me), is the same Torah that told us to forgive, and to not confiscate the poor's collateral, and not to cheat on your spouse, or to cheat your customer . . . it all came from the same source with the same purpose.

##  Paul of Galatians

Romans was a wonderful book. Not a new "Christian" constitution as some say, but a reaffirmation of the original constitution. Romans explained that the real problem was the Flesh, not the Torah, and furthermore explained the real advantage of the Jewish heritage into which the gentiles were being grafted. The advantage was not the traditions of the fathers, not the work of flesh; the real advantage was the footsteps of faith and the gift of Torah.

Galatians deals with the same basic enemy architecture, but the audience is predominantly gentile, steeped in pagan background. Paul's message is for their liberty. The opponents of this congregation are attempting to subjugate them back into the world, and Paul is calling them to stay in liberty. People do not quickly realize that the ways of the world and ways of fleshly religion are the same. The spirit of a catholic or protestant church without the Spirit of God is no different than that of a Wiccan festival.

There are three main scholarly views as to the timing of the Galatians' composition pivoting around similarity to Romans, questions of how soon Paul became an Apostle after his conversion, and the setting of the meeting with Peter. Depending on which of the three views you end up holding, Galatians was either during Paul's second missionary trip (after the Jerusalem council that produced the Acts 15 letter); at the time of the council—more or less; or before the council shortly after Paul's conversion. I don't know which view I favor as they all have positive evidence without being conclusive.

However the consensus in _each_ case is that it was before the Jerusalem meeting in Acts 21 (therefore before A.D. 63). So either Paul is writing this before his meeting with the Apostles, a meeting where a minimum four things are required of the Gentiles (not for salvation, but as a matter of minimum godly conduct) while they continue to learn Torah. Or it is written while Paul sets his heart on keeping the feast in Jerusalem where he will make a public demonstration explicitly to say he does keep Torah and that he does teach likewise.

Hardly, the context we would expect going into what we _think we know_ about Galatians. So what does this Paul—an outwardly Torah keeping and inwardly Torah delighting writer—say in Galatians?

### Galatians 1

1:1, "Paul, an Apostle, ( _not of men, neither by man,_ but by Yeshua the Messiah, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead;)." Emphasis mine. After this verse, what do _you_ suppose Paul has in mind when he wrote this? He goes on for the next few verses to commend grace to the readers from the God who gave Yeshua to deliver them from the world according to the _will of God_. But someone is troubling them? What trouble? Another gospel or a corruption of the gospel (same thing). Of course a counterfeit only works when it looks like the genuine. Then verse ten, " . . . do I seek to please _men_? For if I yet pleased _men_ , I should not be the servant of Messiah." In the next verse, again, he says that he is not preaching a gospel of _men_. So what does it look like the problem is?

Our old nemesis, traditions of men. In verses 13-14 of the first chapter, Paul recounts his spiritual legacy in the "Jews' religion" (more specifically Judaism) and conversion from it. Does this suggest that Moses's teachings from יהוה are past their expiration? On the contrary. _What_ is the religion of the Jews? Look back through Torah, whose Torah was it? יהוה's. Whose judgments, commandments, and customs? יהוה's. Whose feasts? יהוה's. Whose work of sanctification? יהוה's. Whose character did it reflect? יהוה's. So if anything that religion of the Tanakh is יהוה's religion. By contrast, Judaism as defined as the religion _of_ the Jews is as Paul says, "the traditions of my fathers." It is for this very reason I do not claim to be a follower of Messianic Judaism. I am a follower of Yeshua; I am of the people and the name of יהוה. My identity is found in יהוה not in any ism.

And the same holds true for Christianity. Though for the sake of being understood in conversation, I will bear either Messianic Judaism or Christianity and in some cases even Judaism because what they are _suppose-d to be_ is the same. They are all _supposed to be_ systems of worship of יהוה the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I say "bear" because they are all flawed, dangerous, and I daresay terrible titles. A certain amount of distinction is good and right even commanded, but it centers on who we serve, not how we serve. יהוה told us when we do the things we do to give Him the praise and to never let the name of a false god be on our lips as motivator for anything (Exodus 23:13). So it is good when you are being obedient to Him to say, "I am following יהוה or Yeshua His Messiah, His Son."

But beyond that? Was someone who was _rightly_ looking forward to Messiah less Godly than someone _rightly_ looking back to Messiah and ahead to his return? Did not David by the Spirit call Messiah Lord same as we? The point is that God's people are one and have always been one no matter what part of the story they are in. The bad guys who claimed Abraham as their father were not part of his people, and the good guys who "did not" have Abraham as their father were not excluded. Across time there is only one people of God.

Did you realize that Christian was first given as an insult at the congregation of Antioch? I tell you it should have remained so. What happened at Antioch that began just before it? It is in Acts 11. Before Acts 11, this "new" doctrine of the Messiah is called the Way. It is considered part of the _same_ religion. They use the _same_ synagogues and Temple. They worship on the _same_ Sabbath. They use the _same_ book, etc . . . But in Acts 10, Peter after the incident with the sheet begins to realize that God is calling Gentiles to himself also. In Acts 11, Peter recounts the incident to others, and 11:18 they glorify God that Gentiles are being granted repentance unto life. The word goes out and ministers already in the field are only preaching to the Jews (11:19), but some new preachers make it to Antioch and begin preaching to the Grecians, and יהוה gave a bountiful harvest of Gentiles (11:21), and it is in this place that the disciples are called Christians. They do not call themselves Christians; they are _receiving_ the action, non-believers are calling them Christian.

See the connection? Gentiles (dogs, unclean, remember how Peter thought of them) are now beginning to come into this Way, which has been considered part of the Hebrew (one who crossed over) faith. An aberrant part but the Hebrew understanding was large enough to hold it, and some enemy makes _the distinction_. They are no longer part of the Hebrew faith; they are part of something different. Where did we say traditions lead? To division. Is it strange to you that we as "Christians" have inherited Christianity "from" the Jewish faith, but the name comes from Greek roots? Church though linguistically correlated to the same word as congregation in the Tanakh is consistently rendered and spoken of as different from the believers of the "old testament"? Is it strange that we celebrate Easter which aligns with pagan festivals and not Passover which is "Jewish"? Pentecost instead of Shavuot? J-esus instead of Yeshua when we know J-esus was not His name? Why do we have all these different terms for things that are supposed to be the same, only appearing different because someone in the "church's history" made them different? Whose work does that look like?

Distinguish whom you serve (commandment of יהוה) not the system by which you serve (tradition of men). Have we talked about this before? It all comes back to the same, "Did God surely say . . . ?"

It is written that יהוה has declared the end from the beginning, Isaiah 46:10; yet we are forever thinking that we are the first generation to face this problem. It is a very progressive mindset. We think that we have evolved (in the physical _and_ also the spiritual) so we cannot possibly be tempted by the same things that tempted Adam and Abraham and Moses and David and Elijah and the Apostles. We look back and say, "How could they do such things?" Perhaps that is why the Devil can so easily surprise us when he gets us to walk into the same trap. We keep looking about as if we are different and the world is different, so we keep looking for new solutions to new trials, when . . . we never left the outskirts of Eden. There is a reason that all of man is symbolically and spiritually accounted for in the fall of Adam and Eve. We were all there. We are still all there at the foot of the forbidden tree listening to the serpent.

### Galatians 2

Just by way of chronology (in case you want to really nail down the timing), Saul after his repentance apparently went immediately back to Damascus to preach to the heathen, which is a fulfillment of Ananias' revelation in Acts 9:15. That corresponds with Galatians 1:16-17. Three years after that, he finally came to Jerusalem the first time to meet with Peter, James being present, that is apparently in Acts 9:26. By the way, this is interesting because besides Peter, James is apparently one of the only ones with the guts to meet with this guy who had been trying to stamp out the congregation . . . and yet in Acts 21 we are taught (if only by the omission of any teaching) that James is apparently the coward who for the praise of men wanted Paul, another coward, to fake what he did not believe.

According to Galatians 2:1-3, fourteen years later another meeting happened at Jerusalem. It is not clear which meeting this is since Titus not Timotheos is the uncircumcised person present. However, Paul is with Barnabas and those two are not mentioned together after Acts 15 which is the chapter with the council that produced the letter. It seems difficult to imagine that the issue building from Acts 10 through 15 could have gone unresolved after fourteen years of Paul preaching to gentiles, so it would suggest to me that this meeting in Jerusalem was not _later_ than Acts 15.

Continuing the theme that Paul has already hinted at, "false brethren" came in _to bring them into bondage._ Word flag! Bondage describes what? Human tradition, it was the Pharisaic doctrines that were heavy burdens, not the Torah. The child who thinks he can play hacky with the hornets' nest is not more _free_ than the child whose Father has taught him not to do so. Now, why would these people want to bring someone into subjection? Why does someone want to put a binding tradition on another person? So they can be "someone". They think they grow taller by bending others lower.

So back in Jerusalem, James, John, and Cephas (the Rock) extended the right hand of fellowship and were glad that Paul ministered to the gentiles while they focused on the Jews. I note that when Peter is doing right, Paul calls him Cephas (a surname Yeshua gave to him). But when he comes to Antioch, he calls him Peter. Peter means a piece of rock, and if you trace it back to the Hebrew then it means a hollow rock. In other words a rock that has less weight, one that can be easily moved. In Antioch, this light weight is followed by some from James who were of the circumcision. Now, we know that Paul, James, John, and Cephas _are all circumcised_ , so who is he referring to? Apparently those of the _doctrine_ or tradition of circumcision, the denominational guys we have frequently seen that insist you must be circumcised—in order to do right? No. To be saved! The hollow rock then separates from the gentiles he had been eating with. See? Division. Man's word causes division.

Thinking about what the proper teaching is (rather than disproving the false), I think of believers in my own life (or unbelievers for that matter) whom I will accept in certain degrees when I am with them alone, but then when someone "more spiritual" comes along I want to show that I am not really one of _those_ people. How does our conversation change among one group versus another? I will tell you now, if I meet someone who uses so-called profanity, I am not categorically offended. I would even argue that there is a case in which every one of those words is appropriate and even good to use. Remember, Yeshua once called a sincerely seeking woman, a dog. Nice does not equal good, and harsh or rough does not equal sin. Yet, if one of those people were around other people in my life who do not speak in such ways; I would be tempted to avoid them. I say that to my shame, or even if I did not avoid I might be embarrassed for them, even though I myself do not believe it is wrong but because this other person believes it.

Our flesh is springing up the moment we are in a situation and our real thought is "How do I look good to, John or Margaret?" My focus stops being on what the Spirit would have me to do, and how I can preserve my image. Save face. "I'm glad you have not made me like other men, like this publican . . . " Instead, I should be walking as the force that brings them together around the word of יהוה. "John have you met Dave, he works down at the shipyard where God is using him mightily." Or, "John, Dave was just telling me about something God showed him out of the Psalms." We must stand united on the truth.

Paul confronts Peter because he was not walking uprightly according to the glad tidings (another Hebrew equivalent, inconsistently translated gospel only in the New Testament). In 2:16, he again affirms what we saw in Romans and what the Torah teaches, that no one will be justified by their works but by faith. Now 2:18 confuses people, because he says, "If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." What did Paul destroy? The first time this word "destroy" appears in the New Testament it is from the mouth of Yeshua in Matthew 5:17 saying, "Don't think that I am come to destroy the Torah." Was Paul destroying what Yeshua was not destroying? Is Paul in this passage declaring war on the Torah while with his mouth and actions in the book of Acts deceiving everyone else into thinking he is doing the opposite? Does Peter afterwards go back and tell James and John, "This guy is a flaming hypocrite"? Is Peter the one who starts the rumor that Paul was teaching against Torah, but somehow no one else knew it?

Perhaps, Paul is actually talking about the theme already hinted? That the expectations of men, the keeping of the fathers' traditions, the ways of Judaism, and not the ways of Torah are his targets? He knows that by the standard of Torah he is dead. There is no victory through that because, as Paul showed in Romans, your flesh is not subject to Torah nor can it be, even though your inward man knows that it is good. Righteousness had to come through someone who was powered by the Spirit of God; and it did in Messiah not so that we could live free from the power of sin, from the law of sin and death!

### Galatians 3

3:3, "Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Paul knows what he is talking about. See the works of the Torah are simply the deeds of it, like communion or baptism. Neither of those actions will make you perfect. Paul knows because he spent years in fleshly power, zealous for the traditions of his fathers. But this does not mean the Spirit will not have you do the deeds, it simply means if you do it in yourself (and therefore for yourself) you will not be made perfect by it. Most of chapter three is recounting arguments from Romans. Faith came before circumcision (but notice it _did result_ in circumcision).

Pause in 3:10. This verse is mistakenly read today to say that those who _do_ keep works of the Torah are under the curse. If that is true, then Peter who in Acts would not eat unclean food was under the curse. Paul wanting to keep the feast is under the curse. Parents who teach their children to obey them are trying to put their children under the curse.

Does the curse come off and on like a light switch? One minute Yeshua has delivered you from the curse and the next you have delivered yourself right back? When Yeshua told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more", was He condemning her to live under the curse? Or did He know in a couple of weeks that the whole curse thing would be gone, and he just hoped she would figure it out? See it makes no sense, you either have all of the people in the bible in constant conflict with what they have been taught by godly people versus some secret knowledge that would change everything about the way they lived, if only they knew it; or we look for a consistent teaching?

How about this, "as many," as many of who? The brethren! Galatians is not written to the flesh and unbeliever, it is written to the born again. "As many of the brethren are _of_ the works of the Torah . . . "

Wait . . .

How many of the brethren came to be brethren by the works of the Torah?

Big fat zero.

He is saying if you _think_ you have justified yourself (who was the parable of the publican about?) and gotten into God's family because of your works, then you have not studied enough to know everyone that misses even once is under the curse.

An analogy could be made with the phrase "living by the sword." David, Joshua, Moses, Josiah, and Yeshua either did or will use the sword, but they did not, nor ever will, live by it. No one _lives_ by the sword. Living by the sword means you depend on the sword for your life, it is the strength of your arm and the sharp of your blade that preserves your life. Notice that is self-ish thinking, fleshly thinking. The heroes who used swords knew that יהוה was their refuge. God was the giver and preserver of life. David died of old age, so did Joshua, and Moses, not by the sword. Likewise, if you see _your_ deeds of the Torah as the source and preserver of your salvation, than by the Torah you will die because in reality your faith is in you.

Paul moves on to talking about covenants. I feel strongly that what he is about to say is actually a very pro-Torah discussion. Why? Well, the standard doctrine is that Yeshua came to make all things new, including a new religion with a completely new way of doing things. Every doctrine, _you have heard it said_ , is a completely new thought that God never taught before. Yet, when Yeshua taught he was constantly looking back to the beginning. When Paul in Romans and now in Galatians wants to make his case for justification before works, he is not doing it with new thoughts; he is going back to the beginning. He is not even looking to Yeshua's teachings he is going back to Abraham's time.

Galatians 3:15-17 says that once a covenant is confirmed it cannot be disannulled by something that comes after. That is why in legal law (speaking after the manner of men, as Paul would say) a new agreement cannot supersede the earlier. If an agreement can be changed helter-skelter than no agreement was actually made. I have not agreed to give you my car if you pay me, if tomorrow after you have paid me I decide that now I am really going to only give you the car if you pay me more. Likewise, God promised to give a seed to Abraham and therefore what he tells Moses cannot alter that promise. In fact a careful study again shows that the later actually brings about the earlier. For example, it was through the Torah that the Messiah was appointed which in turn fulfilled the promise to Abraham.

This is a pro-Torah argument because just as Abraham's promise could not be annulled, neither did Abraham's promise to have a seed and a nation, annul the promise to Eve that she would have seed. Notice in fact that Mary was the line of Abraham, which fulfilled the promise that Eve (a woman) would have the seed, while at the same time fulfilling the promise to Abraham. One promise _brings about_ the one before it. In this case things do work backwards, trickling back until the first promise is kept.

_Likewise_ then, the promise to David does not annul the promise to Moses, and the New Covenant does not annul the Davidic covenant. Why is it, that of all the covenants (really, they are all one covenant), we think the one in Moses's day is the only one that could be annulled? The one promise that God could break? How is it that the word " _olam_ " which means concealed, as in the expanse of a thing is so great that you cannot see the 'vanishing point', like the horizon. It literally carries the idea of time out of mind, and who is inspiring this word? God. For God the vanishing of _olam_ is not in _His_ mind. That is the assurance of Eternal life. That is the word יהוה used to describe the life of Adam if he ate from the Tree of Life. God does not envision an end to our life with Him. God has never thought about the end. This olam is the same word that יהוה uses to describe the promise to Noah two times, to Abraham three times. So why, in the same book, by the same sub-author, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, is the same word used _four_ times to describe the covenant with Moses, and yet that is the promise that God intended to break?

So Paul cannot from Galatians 3 make an argument that one covenant is vanishing. He is in fact establishing, re-confirming that the earlier covenant _is_ still enforce. Paul _is_ saying God has not grown weary. God _is_ still keeping his word. This is marvelous! Think about what it really means to believe the opposite. To believe the opposite is to say that God sometimes just fails. Sometimes, He cannot do what He claims. If God fails to keep His promise to make _His_ people a peculiar treasure (which as we saw includes those grafted in), then He cannot be counted on to keep any promise. Including the one where you end up living forever in paradise. If God fails one, He fails all. Paul is saying He does not fail even once.

As we saw in Romans and now in Galatians 3:19, the Torah was given because of transgression, not so that there would be more, but so that that thing called sin would not be seen as something part of God's will but an evil thing (Romans 7:13). Because of the Torah all have been concluded under sin for the purpose of making it so that the promise might be by faith.

Did you catch that?

No really, I don't think you did.

Follow carefully.

The Torah was given so everyone could see sin as sin and that they were sinners. Everyone is a sinner. _Therefore_ , the promise of life _could_ come by faith. In other words, if righteousness unto life could have come by keeping Torah it would have. At that point, for a just God, the only people who could be there would be perfect people. In other words the Torah allowed God to prove everyone guilty so that He could offer righteousness by faith, which was a standard anyone could reach.

In the context of what God would do in circumcising the hearts of the Children of Israel (notice, _His_ work), _Moses said_ it would result in all of the people keeping God's Torah, and what does He say? This commandment is very near you (remember a commandment is more than a do; it is an installation of truth in the heart, so this truth you are to keep inside is that your heart will be circumcised _by_ יהוה), Deuteronomy 30:11-14. It is not up in heaven, who shall bring it down? It's not across the sea, who shall go and get it? It is in your mouth and in your heart, "that thou mayest do it." Romans 10:8 said that word, that commandment, was faith. Faith in God is commanded by Torah, and it is the commandment that you can do.

Do you see it now? It was because the Torah came that God could ensure that it was by faith. Without the Torah or with a different incomplete, lesser, fleshly Torah, man would either not know himself a sinner or some men would by the power of their flesh be able to achieve it. Maybe only the rich would get in because they could buy themselves to righteousness? Maybe only the physically able? If the Torah was like the traditions of men, the entire resurrection would be populated with the Pharisees. Yet none of those in that resurrection would have life because no torah done by flesh could give life. And thusly, Torah _ensures_ that it is by faith. If one person could do it in the power of the flesh, everyone else would be unforgivable for their imperfection, and the resulting saved person would themselves be full of the flesh and therefore be literally the living dead.

By Torah, God made the way to the Kingdom of Heaven open for all people everywhere. That is why Paul can say truly in verse 21, that the Torah is not against the promises of God, but for them. As we said before, the latter ensures the former. The Torah is what guaranteed the covenant of Abraham, just as the covenant of David with grace for his line would bring the promised seed which would ensure the fulfillment of Torah which is explicitly God's work of sanctifying us. There is only one covenant, but God makes it repeatedly throughout history, each time not destroying the predecessor but working to fulfill it.

Galatians 3:23-29, our next step of interpretive adjustment. "But before faith . . . " Whoa, whoa, whoa. Time out.

When in the history of mankind was before faith? See, God has done different works, great works, throughout history that is true—but we take that and I believe pervert it into dispensational theology where we believe the relationship from God to man was fundamentally different at different points. This shows itself when we do not understand this phrase. There was no time- _period_ without faith. Did not Adam and Eve have faith for a redeemer? Noah, Moses, David, Daniel, Samson, and Rahab are they not all in the hall of faith in Hebrews? So he is not referring to a time period in human history, he is referring to _our personal histories._ We each were for a time without faith; not that God had not given us faith, but our faith was dead, inactive. How would you describe someone who has never had a living faith? Unredeemed! That goes perfectly because—word flag!—"we were kept under the Torah." What did that phrase mean in Romans? That you are in the dominion of sin; you are under the house of instruction, not inside the house. Is that consistent with the idea of one who is "before faith"? Absolutely!

So when 3:24 says, "Wherefore", it is saying when you were unredeemed, when you were in the dominion of sin, "the Torah was our schoolmaster." Interesting this word schoolmaster means "boy leader". In the Greek the idea for boy comes from the word "to hit." As in a boy is someone who is beaten (frequently) with impunity. Someone you can "slap upside the head." A young boy who is essentially a servant. If we take the Greek "boy" back to Hebrew it is " _ebed_ " meaning servant. What is interesting is that it does not use _valad_ (boy offspring), _zakar_ (remembered or marked, referring to being a male child because the penis is a mark), nor is it _ben_ (son). Perhaps the most important distinction is that the word does not equivocate to _yeled_ (begotten). Are lights coming on? A schoolmaster is _not_ over a son, but over a servant. The person may be physically a son, but positionally they are not.

In other words, before you had faith, you were a servant placed in subjection (under) the Torah. You were not serving God, you were serving the traditions of men (Torah done by flesh). Now, though in your lack of faith you were serving the traditions of men, God did use the Torah even in that state to convict us of sin so that we might be justified by faith. To what end? When faith would come and we would no longer be under the Torah, not without the Torah but not _under_ it. Not under it because you are (present tense, now, not then) the child of God.

First thing, here children means "son", not someone slapped upside the head, in Hebrew _ben_. One of the things people do not understand is that unlike our western culture, an heir was not simply someone who "came of age", a true heir was someone who does the works of the father. Yeshua was the true heir of God. The only "begotten". Isaac though second born was the "only son" of Abraham (Gen 22:2). Timothy and Titus were sons of Paul. So the moment we as servants become children by faith, we also are given God's nature and therefore His works ought to be our works. And what works show the character of God? The Torah!

The second thing is this present tense. We cease to be servants and become children when we are justified by faith. Before we were just servants, beaten as a matter of course—I speak as a man—but _now_ we are children. It is important to tie this idea of being a child of God to this justification by faith because as Paul said justification was always by faith. Did Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Elijah, Daniel, or did anyone back then become counted righteous on any grounds but by faith? Of course not. Then were they not all children of God? If then, faith makes us heirs according to the promise, and the promise fulfills/negates the responsibility to keep Torah (as some say), then why did each of those famous men and women of God do Torah as יהוה gave them strength to? David was justified so why was it a sin to number the Levites or to sleep with Bathsheba for that matter? Why was Josiah rewarded for turning with all his heart to follow יהוה's Torah? Why were the godly kings commended when they kept the feasts? These were all heroes of _faith_ and yet they did not renounce Torah, their faith was evident in that they _did keep Torah_. And that keeping was not fleshly but according to the _Peh_.

### Galatians 4

Chapter 4 continues what we have already discussed. The heir, who is not yet living by faith, is under tutors. But it is important to distinguish that unlike the Greek model which he uses for analogy, truly, the heir is not waiting on time but for their own character to align with that of the father. Josiah was a better king at eight than Jehoiakim on the day he died. Thus Josiah is written as the father of Jehoiakim's son Jeconiah, and Jehoiakim is stricken from the lineage.

The point is that though in the analogy to these Grecians a child's father has appointed the time of the tutors, in God's way it is _we_ who have placed ourselves under tutors by our lack of faith. We were not waiting on the Father; the Father was waiting on us, because faith was _always_ available.

That gives the distinction to 4:3, "When we were children, we were in bondage _under the elements of the world._ " The world is the bondage, not the instruction from God on how to live free and blessed. So God sent his son to be "under the Torah", which is a mystery; how can the one who is full of faith be "under"? We know He did not regard traditions as binding. He absolutely kept the Torah so as far as I can understand it, which was simply the context into which He was placed. Clearly, though, it was never His identity just as He became sin for us though He knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).

But that was the past. Now these Grecians are sons and heirs according to the promise. This is why it is strange to Paul that they would want to return to the ways of the world. Notice that the current sedition is whether they need to do works of the Torah _in order to be saved_ , and Paul equates to the Grecians serving non-gods before they knew God. In his mind, whether you are worshipping things that are not God for your spiritual life, or you are binding yourself to justify yourself; it is the same. Whether you bow to Shiva or Allah, or you insist upon a denominational prayer to ensure a convert's salvation, both are equally of the world. Weak, beggarly, and bondage.

Some might say 4:10 refers to Torah, but it goes without saying that makes no sense. It seems like half of this book is me re-iterating that it makes no sense to accept an interpretation of Paul or any New Testament passage that is in direct opposition to everything that has been taught before. Which days is Paul talking about? Remember He is himself earnestly wanting to be in Jerusalem for the feasts. He is either writing between the lines "I am a flaming hypocrite!" or he is referring to days that are of the world, either pagan holidays or traditionally mandated observances. The word "observe" here means 'note insidiously'. Close inspection. It is interesting but _every other_ use of this word in the New Testament is used either by the Pharisees watching Yeshua so that they could accuse him or watching for Paul so that they could kill him. In the Hebrew it is rendered in three different ways (as far as my Hebrew-Greek takes me): in Psalm 37:12, the wicked _plot_ against the just. Psalm 130:3, it is a good thing יהוה does not _mark_ our iniquities. Daniel 6:11, the men _assembled_ themselves to catch Daniel praying. Paul uses a word that is stigmatized with mal-intent to describe this observation. I would propose that he is talking about additional traditional observances that were being put upon them by false brethren who were trying to steal their liberty and subjugate them.

Paul sees these false brethren as laying a trap for his children whom he labored over. Galatians 4:17 reads better in the literal or the ASV, they want to shut the Galatians away from Paul or anyone else so that they will seek to these brethren. See, the peddling of traditions is about bringing someone else into subjection under another person. By cutting someone off from the Word with the word of man, the person is forced to come to the source of the word to find "truth". "I don't believe that, my Pastor says it's different." Why are so many of our children losing their faith? Because they have no idea why they are supposed to believe something except that a person told them it was so. We have to take them back to the Word and bring the Word together into one piece instead of many, bring them to Messiah not to the pastor.

4:21-31 is very important. By the standing interpretation this is the passage where Paul shows casting out the old covenant. Again, if God would tell us to cast out a covenant ( _His_ agreement) then what guarantee is there that God will not throw out _this_ agreement? Scary, huh? Maybe after a couple million more babies are killed in the womb while Christians stand by; maybe after we have given all of our charity to the government while they pay for things that are abominable to Him; maybe after every child is being 'educated' to believe that God is a fairy tale like Santa Clause; maybe God will just sigh like a leaky gasket and say, "You know . . . they weren't worth the death of my Son. Forget them, we'll take a few that were 'good' and let the rest burn in hell."

Why not? The current position said He did it once before, simply disregarded a covenant that He said was everlasting.

In 4:21, Paul is asking, who wants to be under binding tradition (under the Torah). He then mentions an allegory about the son of Hagar born _after the flesh_ and that of Sarah by promise. He says they are two covenants. Just a heads up, remember in Romans not every time the word law appeared was it speaking of the Torah. There was also the _torah_ of sin and death, which was at war against the Torah of God.

In this allegory, Paul says that the _covenant_ from Sinai is Hagar. Sinai _genders_ bondage. What _gendered_ with Hagar to produce Ishmael? Who was the father? Abram, not _Abraham_ , Abram. When God changed Abram's name, He added a " _hey_ ", the fifth letter of the Aleph-bet (Hebrew Alphabet). In ancient Hebrew, unlike the modern hand-me-down, the letter was a picture of a man with his arms up trying to get attention. Just like when someone shouts, "Hey!" Some—I'm guilty—see more than a coincidence between the pictograph, the English "Hey!", and the Hebrew letter's name. However, more to the point, the letter _hey_ is pronounced with a single exhaling _breath_. It symbolizes creative power. In fact, in Genesis 2:4 the fifth word " _bara_ " (to create) is configured with a _hey_ which in a kosher Torah scroll is always written small. A kosher Torah is one that has been carefully written and examined against other authoritative scrolls so that each letter is checked down to the stroke to be exactly the same. It is a fantastic study just to examine the little nuances of letters found throughout the Hebrew scriptures, the extra large _vav_ smack in the middle of the Torah, the "closed womb" _mem_ of Isaiah, etc . . . Perhaps it is no mystery that Yeshua said not one _yud_ or tittle (the flourish present on a letter) would pass. In Genesis 2:4, this nuance has been interpreted to suggest "in hey" the Heavens and Earth were created. In other words, in a breath. The Talmud comments on Psalm 33:6 (Menachot 29b), the verse says it was the "breath of his mouth" that made the Heavens. The word " _ruach_ " spirit, literally means wind or _breath_.

So when God added a "hey" to Abram and Sarei, what was He giving them? The Spirit. Without Spirit, what are you? Just flesh. Exactly . . . Paul's . . . point. What produced the son of bondage? The flesh. Now that whole relationship, not just the son, was the work of the flesh. God was not the one who gave Hagar to Abram and then gave a son. The flesh did. The flesh of the freewoman no less, not an outsider, it was a problem _in_ the house.

Meanwhile, the son of the freewoman who is the Jerusalem above is Isaac who is free, which is born of the Spirit or the Promise. The reason it was important to remember that the whole Hagar-Abram relationship was of the flesh was because when God gave the covenant to Moses it followed from a promise of God (to make a peculiar people, a royal priesthood) which was based on the foundation of another promise to the Patriarchs. God sent them into Egypt according to _His_ plan and then brought them out again to _His_ mountain where _He_ made a covenant with them because of the covenant _He_ had made with their fathers. So can the relationship between Abram trying to accomplish God's will through the flesh with a bondwoman with _zero_ instruction from God, correlate to God's covenant that He made at Sinai through Moses? The covenant which defined who the Messiah would be, and reaffirmed the promise that He would come? The covenant that came to a people _after_ they had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb and baptized in the Reed Sea?

Really? That orchestration of God is the same as a desperate old couple trying by their own power to have an heir? You have to be kidding! There can be no doubt that the covenant Paul speaks of is a covenant made by flesh not by God's will. It started at Sinai, but it wasn't with God. It was a covenant of men. In fact, the traditions that the New Testament often talks about are traditionally held to be orally transmitted _additional_ instructions from God handed down _from Moses_. In other words, these traditions _also_ claim to be covenant and _also_ claim to come from Sinai.

The two covenants are not Abraham versus Moses; they are Abraham versus the Stiff Necked. So when Paul is saying to throw out the woman and her son, he is not negating a promise that—I cannot over stress this—יהוה, Himself, made. I suspect it will happen much the same way when the false messiah arrives. "Forget what God promised before. God has a new deal." That is the Enemy.

### Galatians 5 & 6

Galatians 5:1-4, bondage refers to the flesh. This is the same Paul who _did_ have Timotheus circumcised and did keep the feasts and even went (or later will go) to the Temple to have sacrifice, so when he speaks of "whosoever is justified by the Torah", he is speaking to those who by their flesh seek to be justified. After all, Paul has just concluded that _no one_ is justified by the Torah, not even the heroes of faith who did walk in Torah.

5:6, could just as easily read baptism, communion, or marriage. None of those things avail, but faith, yet no one concludes those things should not be done? They are not the _basis_ for your righteousness, but they are righteousness to be done.

5:13 is where things start to become clearer. It seems to me in my surveying of Paul that he opens with clearly pro-Torah footing, wanders into some muddy water, and at the end comes out again clearly pro-Torah. It is by separating the bookends that he becomes confusing. In this verse, Paul says that our liberty is for _service_. Wait, liberty for service? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Only outside of Torah. The Torah is a law, but it is a law that gives freedom when lived by the Spirit.

Tie that with verse fourteen, "You are given liberty to serve . . . because/for all the Torah is fulfilled in this one word . . . " Wait, just hold on a second. If the Torah was the bondwoman and her son that was thrown out, why are we even talking about what fulfills it? It is like having a protestant church service debating the proper way to hold a catholic mass. Maybe it is fun in a sense, but paper, pen, and ink were not cheap in Paul's day. It takes effort to communicate, why is Paul wasting time talking about something he just said to get rid of? At this point, some believers will say Paul was simply getting rid of the ceremonial law, but the moral law stays.

What follows is a helter-skelter attempt to slice and dice the Torah to your own desires. Don't like stealing? Well that is a moral law. Like pork chops? Well that's ceremonial then. Don't like charging other believers interest, well that's moral. Don't think God should have a say in your sexual relations with your wife, well that's ceremonial.

I prefer the view that Paul is again upholding that Torah is holy, and just, and good. Notice the echo of Romans 5:15-17 in Galatians. Apparently, backbiting is the opposite of loving your neighbor which fulfills the Torah; and if you walk in the Spirit you will not backbite. Does that sound like the Inward Man delights after the Torah of God? Paul says Spirit and Flesh are contrary. Is that like saying there is another law of sin and death in the flesh, and the flesh cannot be subject to the Torah of God?

What are the works of the flesh? 5:19-21, adultery, fornication/harlotry, uncleanness . . . Wait, sorry I was going to give the whole list and point out how every one of them is in the Torah . . . but did Paul just say _uncleanness_ is a work of the flesh? Pardon me, but where in the New Testament is uncleanness defined? Outside of the Tanakh, guess who talks about uncleanness the most? Paul (Romans 1:24 & 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 4:19 & 5:3, Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:3 & 4:7). Yeshua and Peter also mention it in a bad way. Why are they talking about something that is only defined (and their audience would have known this) in the Tanakh? See, when we start to separate books from their context we run into the case where we have to make up definitions for words that would have been wholly alien to the audience which was supposed to understand them.

But Paul does list the works of the flesh, all of which are either expressly mentioned in Torah or clearly alluded to.

What about the fruit of the Spirit, one fruit that manifests itself in eight flavors. They are all to be found in Torah, and Paul says "against which there is no Torah." Take that and savor it. Isn't it taught today that keeping the Torah is unloving towards sinners like the woman caught in adultery? Isn't taught that it strangles joy? That we would all be like Pharisees running around stepping on each others peace as we condemn one another? That Torah was a license for "eye for an eye" vengeance without any longsuffering? Wasn't it harsh instead of gentle? Evil instead of good? Teaching works instead of faith? Pride in our accomplishments instead of meekness in the face of God's work? Temperance?

Isn't Paul, in fact, rebuking the modern congregation of Messiah because we teach that the Torah was against all those things?

Paul brings it back to his opening thought. 5:26, "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." That is the essence of those who seek to put their fleshly traditions on our shoulders and yoke us into their service. 6:12 says that the reason the false brethren wanted them to be circumcised was so that they themselves would not suffer persecution for the cross of Messiah. It was the fear of men that drove them. Verse thirteen, and those guys do not even keep the Torah. They want you to keep _their_ traditions so that they can use you as a trophy. "Look at my disciple, he's been circumcised the right way. I did that." Or, "This guy comes to all the nightly meetings at our church, and helps in every project. He's so righteous under my leadership." Have you ever met a person who says no legitimate ministry can exist unless it is under another ministry? The Apostolic succession doctrine is like that. Same doctrine, different guise, "Unless you are doing it my way it does not count. I am the mediator between God and man."

In the end, the message of Galatians is really the same as the message of Romans and Colossians and every other book. That should not disappoint or surprise. Why should we chase after the new as if God has not given us from the beginning everything we need? Why does God keep ministering to us with the same message? Because we are stiff necked and slow of heart. How many prophets were rejected before the message was received? How many times did Yeshua the Messiah have to repeat the same message to His own disciples?

We do not need something new, we need what has always been, and that will teach us to look with faith and hope towards the same God who was יהוה to all of the heroes of faith. And that message is that יהוה is doing the work. Our relationship must therefore be with יהוה, and not through men. Forsake their traditions which are bondage and live as freemen by the Spirit. Not with license to live anyway you want, but free from the power of sin and the burdens of men to do what God has said for your own good, and the result will be love, joy, peace . . .

##  Paul of Colossians

This will be shorter because the Devil has no new lies, but what I find exciting about Colossians is the sense of rejoicing. Colossians like Galatians is about liberty, but it is not just liberty away from something, the crushing weight of binding tradition, but it is freedom to enjoy things that the spiritually-guised world would tell us to refrain from.

Colossians is supposed to have been written, during the time of Paul's first imprisonment in Rome (A.D. 61-63). Thusly contextually it takes place after the Torah demonstration at Jerusalem. The subject though is not Torah. In fact, Torah little comes up—less even than is popularly conceived. The subject or one of the most obvious subjects is the supremacy of Messiah, which makes sense because his address seems to be for a primarily Gentile audience, 1:27-29. The Gentiles who have served many false gods need to be taught, reassured, that Messiah is not one among many gods, but the creator of all men and what are called gods.

Chapter two, however, is a go-to place for Torah opponents to find Paul saying what he never said. Colossians 2:8 says to beware of philosophy and vain deceit. Question one; has the Torah ever been described as philosophy or vain deceit? Not in the Bible, by any of God's people. He also says beware of " _traditions of men_ after the rudiments of the world"; is the Torah such a tradition? Do the people of the world go around attempting to make full restitution for their injuries to one another, forgiving one another, loving one another? Does the world rest on the Sabbath day to testify that יהוה sanctifies them?

Colossians 2:11, presumably these were uncircumcised followers in the flesh, but does Paul deny that the right thing to do is circumcision or simply point out that they have the _greater_ circumcision which was commanded in Torah, Deuteronomy 10:16 & 30:6?

When you get to verse fourteen, what is the consistent teaching of scripture? That's God's ordinances are for us or against us? Of course, they are for us. Whose are against us? Those of the enemy, those of the world, our previous "husband's", the flesh, our previous master. In verse fifteen, "And having spoiled principalities and powers," did he triumph over his servant Moses as a principality? Did He triumph over Himself as the power that gave the Torah?

By verse sixteen, we have ignored all these unmistakable signs that it is the Enemy and his ways being triumphed over so that when we read this verse we actually think it says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in _not_ respecting a holyday, _nor_ a new moon, _nor_ of the Sabbath days:" Yet, the text is _without the negation_. He is saying do not let them judge you _for doing_ these things. The world expects you to act like it, to conform to it. In my experience the only hard part about the Sabbath day is that the world and anti-Moses Christians keep urging me to ignore it. The world system wants your devotion almost as much as God deserves it.

In 2:17, we have another verse that is misremembered. From memory does it not say, "Which _were_ a shadow of things to come"? Whereas the scripture reads, "Which _are_ . . . " In Paul's present, decades after the resurrection, Paul says the feasts are still prophetic. Paul is not saying do not be judged for ignoring God's feasts; he is saying do not be judged for upholding them; after all, they are a shadow of things to come. And are they not _good_ shadows of _good_ things to come? A shadow of the rest to come (Sabbath)? A shadow of God's coming triumph (Feast of Trumpets)? A shadow of God's righteous judgment on the nations for which the saints in Heaven say 'how long?' (Day of Atonement)? A shadow of God finally coming down and living with us (Feast of Tabernacles)? Are those not things to look forward to? We teach our children to dream about life when Yeshua returns, but we shun the very commemorations that God established for that purpose?

Verses 18-23 list a number of things which are contrary to Torah yet are read as if they _were_ Torah. Did Moses teach delighting in a downcast mind (voluntary humility), or another way to render that could be a depressed gut (midriff) or being determined to be of humiliating feeling? Did Moses teach worshipping of angels, or that it was forbidden? Paul wraps these up as elements of the world and doctrines and commandments of _men_. None of these traits or descriptors belong to the Torah. Two points that especially stand out to me. Firstly, that these doctrines are prevalent in the church. We do have an epidemic of supposed humility that expresses itself in self-degradation. We do have a rise in interest in angels, apart from their common service to God. We have a lot of commandments of men that tell us touch not, taste not, handle not.

The other point is that many of these doctrines are wrapped up in the phrase "neglecting of the body." Have you noticed how the prophets of the Tanakh and the songs of the Psalms and the wisdom of Solomon all talk about the good pleasures of life, here and now? Did not David sing about the delight of corn and wine? Did he not say that he would despair except he thought that he would taste the goodness of God in the land of the living? Did not the Torah itself command the enjoyment of various things? To do some things simply because you desired them while glorifying God for them? Read the prophets, how do they describe the world to come? Where lion and lamb are at peace? Every man has a fig tree and a vineyard? That God will prepare a feast? These are physical descriptions, even if we say they are inadequate metaphors for the subject matter; they are the _inspired_ descriptive examples. If God wanted to, he could have told us, "Don't worry about it. You can't even comprehend it, so don't try." Instead He takes things we do know to wet the appetite and to guide our curiosity and yearning. These experiences of the body are given so that we would turn to God. The _goodness_ of God leads men to repentance. Why is it surprising that fruit should taste good? That wine should be part of celebration? That chocolate should be considered of divine origin? That a thunderstorm should be exciting? That the endless stars of Heaven should transfix us?

In immortal paradise, God _chose_ to give us bodies. That was His choice and He called it very good and blessed it. So whose doctrine is it that we should ignore the body and all the experiences we receive in it? Who is really behind the push to forsake the good pleasures that God has given? Isn't it the Enemy? And why do you suppose the Enemy wants you not to enjoy wine at all, or be so concerned with your health that you pass up butter or meat or the occasional confectionary delight? Why does he find it important to degrade women and to damage relationships, to have the church become silent on matters of healthy good sex? Have you read Song of Solomon?

I think these all come back to the earlier assertion, God gives no power to keep the traditions of men. So along the way, the Devil manages to teach us to think that the things God has given for pleasure are ungodly, so we separate God from the goodness that He created. The goodness now "belongs" to the World, and God is keeping you from it. And at the same time you have no power to keep away from the stolen goodness so you fail, outwardly and inwardly; then you condemn yourself for enjoying this or that because you believe it is evil. So, we defeat ourselves.

Or is it, our _selves_ defeat us? God help us that we never get convinced that enjoying a glass of water or clean air is a sin.

And this does not just end with physical pleasures (as if we can splice what God has made whole?). Do you ever do something good and think, "I really just did that because I wanted attention." Or not want to perform at your best in a sport or in singing at synagogue because you do not want to "show off"? It sounds legitimate, it sounds spiritual—ironic, condemnation always sounds spiritual?—but in doing so you are denying the good talent that God gave you and at the same time denying everyone else the opportunity to be glad for your talent.

Show off!

No, I do not mean do anything for human praise. That is the _flesh's_ point. Do it because God has made you good at it, and rather than accepting the demonic attack that you _might_ be doing it for your own glory, _choose_ to do it for His.

"Wow, you have a great voice! I love to hear you sing more than anyone else!" they say.

"I am so glad to hear you say that. My Father gave it to me," you reply unashamed that God has honored you above the crowd for a moment.

"You are a beautiful woman," he says.

"Thank you, that's how my Father made me," she answers unashamed that someone noticed the glory God has given to her.

"You certainly have a lot of money. You must really understand business."

"It hasn't been easy, but my Father taught me," he replies unashamed of the prowess that God has given.

None of that actually needs a disclaimer explicitly mentioning God so long as you mean it. I think in someway it detracts from the compliment when you redirect in front of the praise giver. The person meant to bless _you_ , and you act like the gift was somehow unfit. That is that spirit of dis(against)-en(in)- _joy_ ment again. Why not accept the compliment and know in your heart where only God sees that you know it was for him? Isn't that where God says the most precious rewards start? Perhaps, you are afraid that they won't know to give the glory also to God? Why is that a fear? Did Yeshua say to tell people to glorify your Father in Heaven, or let your light shine before men so they _might_ glorify your Father?

Remember when the servants at the wedding feast took the water that was made wine to the master? He praised the wine, and the groom, but the servants knew who had done it and they said nothing. No one corrected the compliment. The scriptures do not say why, but is it not possible that the one who made the wine for people to enjoy also wanted the compliment to be enjoyed by the groom? Is not part of the blessing of any talent the praise of lips? If you buy your wife a new dress do you feel it is important for her at every compliment to say, "My husband bought it." That may come out, but was the point for your wife to be praised or for you to be praised? The point of not doing things for praise, or not showing off, is not that the deed is not done excellently, nor is it that praise is not uttered or received. It is that we do not do it _for the praise._

Colossians 3-4 ends with Paul reinforcing good teachings, all of which you can find in the Torah. Not only does this letter not contradict Torah, it reaffirms those commands of enjoyment found in the Instruction of God that we never hear about. Colossians is _for_ enjoying the goodness that Torah allows. Do not let anyone judge you for those multiple, annual good times that God teaches you to celebrate! Do not let them rob you of God's goodness. They are the anti-; we are the pro-. The Devil enslaves and oppresses; God frees and gives joy. If your religion is stale and joyless, then it is not God's.

##  Paul? Of Hebrews

Originally, I thought the exploration of the previous three books was enough. I do think that with the preponderance of scripture one can simply go through Hebrews and where they find an alleged anti-Torah, anti-covenant thought, trust that it is being misunderstood and that with seeking the truth will be revealed. I think that is true. But the main reason, I would have suggested that resolution was because I had not previously taken the time to understand what the writer (possibly Paul) really meant by Hebrews. That has been a decision based on laziness and fear. Laziness because it would be work. Fear because just as many Christians may be afraid that pursuing a Hebrew/Torah mindset will mean finding Yeshua at fault and "having to" reject him, there are people who have looked at Hebrews and found it so befuddling that they either reject or at least contemplate rejecting the book's canonicity.

I understand that temptation to reject the book entirely, but it should not be so. Is the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes not confusing? Do they not challenge what we expect to be true, as Job does? And yet by the Holy Spirit, יהוה teaches many great things from all three of those. So let us look at Hebrews with this confidence, that יהוה did intend for it to be there and that truth consistent with scripture will be found there despite trouble in the text.

Undesirably, difficulties arise from the start, as unlike the previous books, the text does not claim an author, and even the title "to the Hebrews" is suspected of not being part of the original letter. Many suggest Paul as the author, or a companion of Paul such as Silas or Luke, or someone trained by Paul such as Apollos. In the ecclesiastical history written by Eusebius (a famous Roman Historian and Bishop of Caesarea who wrote a substantial account of the church from the first to the fourth centuries), the actual writer and author are disputable, however, the consensus of personal opinions from Origen and Clement grant that Paul was the author of the thoughts even if the phraseology suggested someone else may have penned it on Paul's behalf 3. The belief in a Pauline origin appears to be a principle reason that Hebrews was included in the canon. Evidence of it being possibly Paul's thought, but another's writing, also come from the opinion of John Calvin who points out Hebrews 2:3 which says, " . . . salvation; which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed _unto us by them that heard him,_ " (emphasis mine), as to suggest that the writer was someone who did not directly hear from Yeshua. Paul had heard directly, therefore, it is said it was not Paul.

The alternative is that the writer heard from Yeshua, but it was also confirmed to them. If Paul, then this could have been when he met with James and Cephas to discuss his doctrine. Other evidence that it was in fact Paul is the mention of Paul in 2 Peter. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews as Paul was to the gentiles (Galatians 2:7-8), even though Peter started in that function. The epistles of Peter seem to be written, therefore, to believers of a naturally Hebrew background. Even though Peter addresses his letters to the "strangers", we can understand that to be a reference to Hosea 1:9-10 where God says to the House of Israel (but not the house of Judah) that they are not his people anymore; however, He foretells of a time when they will be called the Sons of God. In contrast, Judah from which we get Jew was never told they would not be a people and while the house of Israel became "lost", the house of Judah has culturally remained recognizable. It can further refer to the fact that our fathers (Abraham, etc . . . ) recognized themselves as strangers and pilgrims. Also, the language of Peter's 1 and 2 reflect an audience culturally familiar with the scripture, 2:9-11 makes all three of these points.

So it is in Peter's second epistle to his group of ministry, the circumcised, that he says in 3:15 that Paul also wrote _to them_. Where is the epistle that Paul wrote to the Hebrews? We have no stronger candidate than the book of Hebrews itself. If Paul is assumed (and for the preponderance of evidence, _I will assume it_ ), then 2:3 is an interesting verse because it shows that his "confirmation", something he holds up as important, came through the Apostolic community which was also present in Acts 21. His confirmation came from a pro-Torah group.

Hebrews was first mentioned by Clement of Rome (another posited author by the way) in A.D. 95. However, considering the subject matter of Hebrews it seems unlikely that it would not have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if it had been written afterwards, and that would put the writing in the later years before A.D. 70. The lateness is suggested by the closing. 13:24, " . . . They of Italy salute you." This again points to Paul because we know he went to Rome, and this also agrees with a time frame after Acts 21 thus somewhere between A.D. 48 and 70.

Without further delay, let us explore the text.

### Hebrews 1

From the first verses, the intent of this book is clear. The supremacy of Messiah over all other revelations of God. Yeshua is the express image of the Father and upheld all His Word, and thus sat down in triumph next to His Father. There can be no disagreement with this. Is Yeshua superior even to Moses? Of course! Moses said we shall listen, with intent to obey, to the prophet who will be like him (Deuteronomy 18:15). From creation to the later prophets, the Messiah is the single prophetic theme of scripture. It is why I think Psalm 119 is a very Messianic Psalm, who else loves the ways of יהוה more than the Messiah? In fact, there is a rabbinic tradition that all prophecies are about the days of Messiah. They even say that the Messiah will explain the correct meaning behind the structure of the letters of the aleph-bet (Hebrew alphabet). He will also explain the spaces between the letters. The idea that the Messiah would be the chief expression of God does not threaten to make Hebrews a heretical work, rather it points to what we saw in the beginning; first God signals then God executes.

Where we begin to make our mistakes is to think that the Chief Cornerstone replaces all the other stones. On the contrary, as we see with the covenants, a cornerstone guarantees the other stones. It secures them, not demolishes them. Yeshua as the supreme revelation you would expect to be a clearer image of all that came before, not the opposite. And that is what we saw; at every point Yeshua when challenged on the Torah, upholds Torah but according to the _Peh_ and not the flesh. In fact, as the Word made flesh He is also the _Peh_ (mouth) made flesh.

Verses 7-8 are a quote from Psalm 45, in Hebrew "thou hast loved righteousness" is literally a physical-type affection for _tzedek_ (righteousness). That's not a startling difference, but remember, to the writers of Psalms (and also to Paul), the standard of righteousness is the Torah. Paul of Hebrews is saying that this Psalm is actually (more highly) speaking of Yeshua, the coming King. What else could it be? Did Yeshua _receive_ his righteousness by faith or by deed? The point is Yeshua, this chief expression, was anointed by the Father because he loved righteousness as taught in Torah.

### Hebrews 2

The natural conclusion of chapter one is 2:1, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed . . . " Notice, the contrast of thinking. Does not our thinking immediately assume that "more earnest heed" to Yeshua means "less heed" to Moses? Moses told us to listen to the Messiah, but if we were not _first_ listening to Moses then we would not know to listen to Messiah. Wasn't that the opening quote for this book? If you have not believed Moses, you cannot believe me? The answer is to more greatly heed Messiah because He is greater, not less heed to Moses. See the parallel in 2-3? It was _just,_ the recompense that was done to those who rebelled against the messenger Moses, how shall we escape ignoring the greater salvation? In these two verses, it is confirmed that what was done in the days of Moses was right—in the modern church, it seems we have to explain and apologize for Moses—and also establishes that our relationship is _like_ that but connected to one greater than Moses.

I do not mean that as an "anti-grace" statement, even though consequences for disobedience are clearly in view. Rather since grace was always present I mean to point out that God's ways continue to be consistent. He was not a jerk in Moses day, and a nice guy in ours.

2:11, I just had to stop. If you know the Torah then "He that sanctifieth" carries the immediate association of יהוה; Paul is saying Yeshua is יהוה, יהוה is one with us. יהוה is not ashamed to be our brethren. How cool is that? God wants to be our brother? The theme of chapter two seems to be this theme. The writer points out repeatedly, Yeshua took on the image of man not angels; He suffered our trials, not theirs; in all things He identified with us.

One more thing to take with us, why did Yeshua take on our likeness? 2:15, to deliver us who through _the fear of death_ were subject to _bondage_. Keep those word flags in mind. The reason we keep Torah has never been the fear of death, nor has it ever been bondage, only elements of the world are described that way.

### Hebrews 3

Another natural continuing thought, Hebrews seems to be more than many of the epistles a single thought. Perhaps Paul's other letters were to Gentiles who did not have the framework of the Tanakh to plug new thoughts into, much like the mainstream church which is sadly ignorant of the greater story that our New Testament is simply a continuation of. Did you notice that in both Peter's and Stephen's sermons to the Jewish people they recounted their history? The context, God's work for hundreds and thousands of years, created the fertile bed which produced the largest conversions in the New Testament.

In this case, Yeshua being the best revelation of God and yet identifying with man, because of this, consider Yeshua's faithfulness (3:1-2). Notice the comparisons; God sent revelation by prophets and angels, Yeshua is a better revelation because He is the image of God; Moses was faithful as a servant, Yeshua's faithfulness is better because He is the Son. Therefore, harden not your hearts as in the provocation (3:8-9). He is echoing back to 2:1-3, how shall we escape if we neglect so great rescue?

This is why understanding the scripture as whole is so important. What is Paul talking about? Psalm 95:8-11 is the origin of his quotes. What is this provocation? The word there is " _meriybah_ " meaning quarrel. The word for "temptation" is _massah_ , these two should sound familiar. There was a spring made at the place of those two names in Exodus 17. Israel is in the wilderness, and there is no water. Now, this is after so many signs and wonders, but the people say, "Is יהוה with us or not?" It says they tempted Him there. That is the same word for test. God does sometimes approve of testing, but the short difference is whether you are testing _with the expectation that His Word is true_ versus testing with the expectation that He will fail. If you do not believe God can do it, then why are you testing Him? To prove Him weak or to provoke Him to action that He would not ordinarily do. A similar circumstance can be found with Yeshua when the Devil said, " _If_ you be the Son of God throw yourself down for it is written . . . "

In Hebrews, Paul is saying do not harden your hearts as you did when you tested God in unbelief. Verse twelve, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." How do we fight this? Verse thirteen, "But exhort one another daily, while it is called today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Hardness comes through the delusion of sin, and what is sin? We have already seen by Moses, Paul, and John, that it is the breaking of Torah. Why do we break Torah? Because we say in our hearts the Torah of God is not good. Even worse this is now codified doctrine coming from the pulpits and seminaries. Keeping His commandments is not for our good, we say, and does not show how near God is too us. Like our fathers . . . "Is יהוה with us?"

That is why whatever is not of faith is sin because sin says that God is not true. His word is a lie. Sin is agreement with the serpent. That is what happened at _Massah_ and _Meriybah_. In Hebrews 3 and in the Psalm 95, which Paul quotes, the problem was not needing water. It was not griping with Moses; it was lack of faith. Both passages mention that the evil generation would not enter into His rest, but that decree did not happen at _Massah_ and _Meriybah_ (though it was for the second rebellion at _Meriybah_ that Aaron and Moses would not enter). The evil generation was disinherited after the evil report, the act of slander against the land which God had promised to give them. Again, their _confession_ was with the serpent against יהוה. You could say that everything in the Bible and everything said or done under the influence of the Spirit is a glad tiding about God and His plan and promises for us; and everything the serpent says is slander against those things. The heart of all demonic attacks is that God does not have your best at heart.

It was afterwards, that the generational decree was handed down in Numbers 14:23-37. Notice God's language, "scorned (provoked) me (23) . . . murmur against _me_ (27) . . . as _ye_ have _spoken_ (28) . . . murmured against _me_ (29) . . . your little ones, which _ye said_ (31) . . . gathered together against _me_ (35) . . . and the men . . . who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against _Him_ by bringing up a _slander_ upon the land, even those men that did bring up the _evil report_ . . . " God recognizes that the target was not Moses, it was Him, and their scorning was repeatedly confessed in their murmurings and their spoken profession concerning God's promises. Is it any wonder that Yeshua said he who breaks the Torah and _teaches_ others to do so, will be least in the kingdom? Romans 10:10, " For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." What we believe or do not believe always comes out in action and in word. Do not let the delusion of sin (breaking the truths that have been put inside your heart) harden your heart in disbelief because it was unbelief that made that generation unable to enter into the rest.

### Hebrews 4

Our study here is not exhaustive, chapter four is a reminding of a promise of rest yet to come for God's people. And this seems to be another important theme of this book. Paul is warning of the danger of unbelief, the examples given are predicated on the fact that God will do what He has said He will do, so do not be deceived. This is the essence of faith. Paul seems to be very concerned but not so much with doctrinal nuances.

Assuming a great deal of scriptural literacy from his audience, he recalls what his Hebraic audience clearly already knows. His message does not seem to be so much of correcting doctrine but as he told them they ought to do, "exhort one another daily." He knows the followers of Messiah of Jewish descent have suffered greatly under Roman rule and Messiah has not returned. That is why He is pushing to them _belief_. Recall from chapter three on, "hold fast the _confidence_ , and the rejoicing of the _hope_ ," "hold the beginning of our _confidence_ steadfast," "hold fast our profession."

One thing that I would point out, as it regards the Torah. Remember how in discussing Peter and even James, Torah was never at the center of the discussion? It was in the background, it was setting, it was reflected clearly in perspective, but it was not on stage? So far here, it is much the same. The subject is Yeshua and the promises. Notice James, Peter, and Hebrews are all letters written to a primarily Jewish audience? It is telling that the books addressed to groups where biblical literacy was high and Torah was the accepted standard _are not the books that concern themselves much with the overt issue of Torah._ If the gentiles were ignorant of Torah and it was not to be kept, why would you bring it up so much? If the Jews were the ones who were actually adherents, why would you not make that the center of your doctrine?

The writers to the Hebrews whether James, Peter, or in this case Paul, assume an understanding from their audience that our modern church culture entirely lacks. They assume without having to say so that the audience knows what happened at _Meriybah_ ; that Psalm 95 exists; that promises have been made; that our fathers slandered the Promised Land and were disinherited. They each rely on this understanding as the foundation for sound doctrine, while at the same time remain silent to their primarily Jewish audience about something so Earth-shaking as the passing away of Torah.

One cute little aside, which points to how the end has been revealed in the beginning. Ponder Hebrews 4:2, "For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them [those who died in the wilderness from unbelief]." Not only does this show that this "new" thing which we call gospel (yet for some reason the translated equivalent in the English Old Testament is instead translated 'glad tidings' or 'good report') has been in God's plan since the beginning. But it also means as we saw before, the word of faith as spoken by Moses was always available. Again the writer of Hebrews is confirming, the Enemy is the only one interested in dividing the "old" and the "new".

### Hebrews 5

Chapter four ended with the thought that we should come boldly to the throne of grace _because we have a high priest that has passed into the Heavens_ who has sympathy for infirmities (4:14-16). That will be important to remember for several reasons. First remember, our High Priest has gone into the Heavens; He is not an Earthly priest. The second is notice His infirmities (being a man) makes Him compassionate. So what do you make of 5:1-3?

Paul is saying that being taken from among men, _Earthly_ priests can have compassion on men because they also have infirmities. Is he saying, God set up the priesthood not to demonstrate vengeance and guilt, but compassion?

5:3 is important because it points to an important distinction between Yeshua and the Earthly priest, the Earthly has compassion because he has his own sins. Yeshua had compassion because He was tempted, but did not sin. As someone else once pointed out, it is not the person who fails to lift a burden who knows the true weight of it. It is the one who can lift it. However, do not miss that the priest on Earth _does_ have compassion. His existence is good, but he is also a picture of someone better. Just like Moses was _the_ Prophet, but someone better was coming.

At this point it would be good to remind ourselves of our original premise that God always gives the signal before the execution. Hebrews is about to talk about the Melchisedecian priesthood, a prophecy that can be found in the same Messianic Psalm 110, which states "יהוה said unto [David's Lord], sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." David by the Spirit of יהוה does indeed tell us that the Messiah, son of David, will be a priest like Melchisdec. However, before we look forward at that, remember what comes before.

In Exodus 40:15 and Numbers 25:11-13 not only does יהוה say that the Aaronic priesthood is theirs (plural) as an everlasting anointing, but He also confirms it as a covenant of peace and an everlasting covenant of priesthood. In other words, whatever the Melchisedecian priesthood is, it cannot set aside the one given to Aaron. Now, I have heard it said that the Luke genealogy of Yeshua is a priestly lineage, thus He is bringing the two priesthoods together. There are several problems with this. Firstly the lineage in Luke 3 goes back to David through Nathan (instead of Solomon) who goes back to Judah the son of Jacob, not Levi. The line is Judah's line, not Levi's. Aaron specifically is not even mentioned. The two genealogies, I believe, have to do with a levirate fulfillment of the blood line (a brother died, and his brother of the same tribe had a son by his brother's wife in the name of his brother). But in any of the possibilities, tribe comes from the father's side not the mother. Mary (who is not a _son_ of Aaron) cannot give a Levitical heritage to Yeshua.

But none of that is a problem because the prophecy does not _take_ priesthood from Aaron's line, it _gives_ a different kind of priesthood to the line of David. Which further points to the fact that you do not need to look for a Levitical tie since יהוה is swearing this other priesthood to the _line of David_. And that is what needs to be understood going forward. That is why it was important to talk about our priest who has "passed into the heavens". Yeshua is not an Earthly priest in competition or replacement of the promise to Aaron's sons, He is another kind of priest entirely. This should not be surprising because there is also a prophecy in Ezekiel 34:23-24 and 37:24-25 that says Israel shall have one shepherd, David, who shall be prince and king over a unified Israel; at the same time Isaiah 9:7 says that an endless kingdom shall be given to the Messiah who will "sit on the throne of David". How can God have two Kings of Israel? I am not going to try and solve that mystery here, but I suspect, and I work under this suspicion, that David's will be Earthly and Yeshua's Heavenly—and yet the two shall be one.

In the same way, I believe Paul is showing us that—without displacing Aaron's promise—we have a High Priest who has _passed into the Heavens_ , and His priesthood is above, not replacing but something else, something higher.

Paul closes out this chapter with a rebuke, saying there is much to say of Yeshua that is hard to hear for those dull of hearing. And why are they dull of hearing? Because they need to again be taught the first principles of the _oracles_ of God (5:12). I emphasized oracles because we have seen that word before, and remember it traces back to the Torah spoken by the Angel delivered to Moses (Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2). So he is not saying they have failed to understand something completely alien and new, rather they are forgetting things which they have known for a very long time. Hence the lesson from Psalm 95.

### Hebrews 6

Five ended with a rebuke, and six opens with "enough said about that". That is odd, since he just told them they need to be taught again and then he opens by saying "we're not going to talk about those things." It seems like he has really been saying, "You already know that stuff. You just forgot you know it, so wake up."

So far, he has been making his sermon based upon the Tanakh and the Torah. He has also told them the Glad Tiding was being preached (and not believed) even back in Moses's day. He then tells them that they need to remember and hold fast to what has come before, so when he opens with "not laying again the foundation from dead works, and faith toward God," and the et cetera; we know that the truth has always been there. In other words, what should be obvious, dead works does not refer to righteous acts but works of the flesh that justify one's self.

Scriptural interpretation becomes a lot easier when we admit that Moses and Yeshua were on the same team.

Hebrews 6:3-6 is a passage of controversy. Does this teach the possibility of losing salvation? You will have to come to your own conclusion, I do not believe so, however, verse six needs addressing. Some have construed this to mean that obedience to the Torah commands (or even any 'command' so called) is like crucifying Yeshua again. That is about a dozen different kinds of ridiculous. Firstly, if you believe that then ever _choosing_ to do something because you believe it is what God wants is also crucifying him afresh. Secondly, "if they shall fall away . . . ", from what? Fall away from the first principles of Messiah. What are the first principles? Faith in God which is diametrically opposed to dead works which are self-justifying. Dead works are works of the flesh. The shame that follows is based upon the inability of self-justifying works to produce repentance (which of necessity is turning away from self to God). The part about crucifying the Messiah again is difficult to understand, except that Paul gives the comparison of the rain on the ground. Good ground receives God's blessing and produces good fruit (which is profitable for the one who planted it), the bad produces thorns and is rejected. So it seems that there are dire warnings for receiving God's grace and then turning around and not producing fruit.

6:9-15 is refreshing though, Paul does not think that applies to these people even though he has been admonishing them not to not be hardened and that they seem to have forgotten first principles of Torah. And notice, verse ten. If the previous verse had been one of those six different kinds of ridiculous, then how could God have respect to their work if doing a good work (as opposed to a fleshly work) was crucify Messiah again? Righteously, God has respect for their _work_ done _to_ His name! Paul in fact desires that every one of them _do_ the same. Doing is the important part because it is the _fruit_ of the _seed_ which God planted, to say that God sent His Son to die so that we could do nothing is nothing short of a satanic lie.

At the close of the chapter, Paul returns to the exhortation of promises. The reason to do the work, even when we cannot feel the blessing which is inherent in the work, is to remember God's faithfulness and His promises. Promises so high that יהוה had to swear by Himself. Remember, the subject of _Peh_? The value and meaning of a word comes from who spoke it. In this case, יהוה not only spoke something, but even though it was impossible for Him to lie, He swore it! How cool is that? His Word was good enough, but He swore anyway. And why? That " . . . we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us . . . Which _hope_ we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast . . . " Hebrews 6:18-19. He promises in order to give us hope because He cares for us.

### Hebrews 7

At the end of six, Paul told us that our hope has gone within the veil, where Yeshua has gone as a priest of the Melchisedecian order. He is now going to say more about this man, Melchisedec. Earlier, I proposed that Yeshua is part of a higher priesthood, not a replacement priesthood. Hebrews 6:20, shows this to be true because Yeshua did not go into Holy of Holies on Earth. This Melchisedecian order is a Heavenly one.

Is that what Paul is trying to tell us by pointing out the greatness and mystery of a man whom even father Abraham tithed too and received blessing from? Who has no lineage? Who abides continually as a priest (7:1-3)? Is Melchizedek today in Jerusalem as a priest? Or perhaps was he taken like Enoch or by some other means transferred into the Heavens to continue as a priest? It is a mystery, but the point is clearly that neither of them is down here serving as a priest.

And further, Paul establishes the validity of the Levitical priesthood, 7:5 "And _verily_ they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the Torah . . . " I emphasized verily, or in some versions 'indeed', because we kind of roll over that like it is a filler. "Oh, indeed, indeed." It has almost no meaning, but the use here is like "truly" or "seriously" it is a word of emphasis that what is being said is true, pay attention to it. This truth than confirms the unique position of the sons of Levi. Rather than denigrating them, and telling them everyone is the same in Messiah, he upholds their position. In the _present tense_ , they receive the office and _do have_ a commandment. Not only are Levites important, but they currently hold an office and a commandment. And how does Paul know this? _According to Torah._

7:4-10 confirms how great Melchisedec was. His greatness is established _in the account of Torah_ because Abraham was blessed by him, and Abraham gave gifts too him. This Melchisedecian order is particularly insightful to this discussion because notice Paul goes _back to the beginning_ (literally, _B'ereshiet_ or Genesis) to prove the case for this "new" priesthood. That is the essence of what we have been seeing, the New is completing the Old, not replacing it. In fact this man Melchisedec was before Abraham and outside of the blessing of Abraham, and yet whatever God did with him is being perfected. It is as if God has all these projects that He started and people think that because He has "let the dust settle" on this one or that, He has abandoned them. On the contrary, in His time, they are all picked up again.

Understand, therefore, the seemingly difficult verses that are to follow. In Hebrews 7:11, Paul says if _perfection_ came by the Levites, why then was another priest needed? When we see that word perfection, we are think "This is better, that is worse." But the word " _teleiosis_ " traced back in the Septuagint is the majority of the time from the Hebrew word " _millu_ " from "to fill". When Yeshua said "It is finished", it was from the same root as _teleiosis_. Since that was the perfection does that mean it replaces His ministry? Could not Yeshua have simply appeared at the cross, and literally offered Himself in the place of Barabbas, and hit the same objective?

If you say yes to that last question, then you must believe the Son of God was wasting time for those thirty some odd years.

If you say no, then you must conclude that the cross alone _could not have reached perfection either_.

Uh oh.

If that is the case, then can we consider that neither the New Covenant nor the Melchisedecian Priesthood is able to reach perfection without the previous covenant and priesthood? See, we read 7:11 as if the Levitical priesthood not reaching perfection was a flaw in God's design. He did not know what was needed so He slapped together the best He could in the desert to buy Himself time to come up with the final solution.

That is blasphemy.

The truth is that the Levitical priesthood, alone, was never intended to reach perfection. This was a different component designed with a future component in mind. The future component likewise was not designed to reach perfection alone, it was created with the previous counterpart in mind. Together what is empty is made full.

So what do we make of verse twelve? I will admit this is tough, the English is confusing, but remember what Paul himself said in Galatians 3:15-17 that a later covenant cannot set aside an earlier one. Relevantly, right here in Hebrews 7:14 the first _covenant_ of priesthood mentioned in scripture is not Melchisedec's but Aaron's. As we have seen before, whatever follows _must uphold_ what has been before. Like with the Torah there is no mention anywhere prior to our passage in Hebrews of the Levitical priesthood being done away with. There is no signal so there is no execution to expect. The Levitical priesthood will last at least as long as the Earth does (everlasting could be rendered world-lasting). Isaiah 66:21 could even be interpreted as other people being added to the Levitical order. Jeremiah 33:18-22 in the time of Messiah and a returned Davidic kingdom, the Levitical service and its multitude are guaranteed. Whatever is said here _cannot_ disannul the Levitical priesthood.

So how do we understand this? Paul saying that the priesthood and the Torah are changed? Now, the Torah can be changed, that is true. At one point marrying your sister was a good thing, but (we speculate) that due to the degeneration of man, at some point it became not a blessing to marry your sister. No doubt that change came with a signal first and both when it was legal and illegal it was because the aim at which the _Peh_ was pointing had moved, or we had moved relative to it. That is not hard to understand really. Good parents tell their kids not to engage in sexual activity with someone they are courting or dating, but once a marriage ceremony takes place suddenly we have parents encouraging them to give them a grandchild. The goal of _faithfulness_ leading to blessing has not changed, just where we stand relative to accomplishing that blessing has changed.

However, when something becomes described as "everlasting" that no longer works, and that is why the priesthood cannot be _removed_. But can it be changed? The prophecies regarding the Levites and the covenant is that the Levites will not be _removed_ , not that another in a parallel capacity will not be _added_. Is there another way this can be interpreted? I will not claim to be an expert in Greek or Hebrew, I am self-taught, but I believe God has given a growing success to that learning. My understanding is that in verse twelve we have the word " _metatithēmi_ " for "being changed" and a noun version for "change". It is a compound word from " _meta_ " which is a preposition connotating accompaniment, as in amid; and the word " _tithēmi_ " a verb meaning "to place". More than one object is implied in this compound. That can be seen in the use of _metatithēmi_ in Acts 7:16. It is not just Joseph but Joseph and Jacob who were carried out of Egypt. Galatians 1:6, it is not one person alone who has been carried away with false doctrine but the plural of you. One of the benefits to the KJV's old English is that you have a literal distinction between you (singular person) and ye (plural people). Hebrews 11:5, it is a little less clear but we know from Genesis 5:24 that God "took him", so you have God taking Enoch _with_ Him. Hebrews 12:27, Heaven _and_ Earth are shaken. So we see clearly it is not one thing (the priesthood) being moved from one place, but two or more things together.

One might argue that the "with" connotation is the Torah being changed as well, but Paul says "also" a change of the Torah. Two things are "transported", and also the Torah. This begins to take an interesting shape. We know that the Torah was always incomplete . . . well . . . in a sense. It was made whole as it was, but it was whole waiting for something more. There was a future component yet to be installed. Or perhaps a better way to put it, a plant has not matured until it bears fruit. We have admitted that the ink strokes by themselves could never make you perfect by the power of your flesh, now we further see that the accompanying Levitical priesthood was also unable to reach perfection but was installed with a future priesthood in mind. But what is the goal? It is the perfection!

I put to you the _meta_ (with) of _metatithēmi_ is the Levitical Priesthood and the Melchisedecian Priesthood. As with Yeshua and the Cross, neither alone was sufficient to accomplish God's purposes. The latter is added to perfect the former. The latter is also imperfect without the former. The "with" is that the two priesthoods together do reach to perfection! The "with" is that the Torah and Yeshua (and the Spirit) do reach to perfection! God has not set aside one promise and made a better one, God has made the first one full by adding another thus proving He is faithful to fulfill _all_ His promises. See, if He had done it the way the church teaches then how could God be faithful? He simply canceled what He was unable to accomplish. God forbid! We have the echo of history in this false doctrine. Moses said to God after the evil report on the land that God should not blot out His people and _start over_ because the nations would say it was "Because יהוה was _not able_ _to bring_ this people into the land . . . " (Numbers 14:16, emphasis mine). Moses reminds Him of who He is and prays that He will be powerful and forgive, and God says "I have pardoned _according to thy Word_." We today teach that the reason God _needed_ a new covenant was because of the flaws of the earlier. We profess that God was not able to bring His people to the promise so He did have to throw out what came before. And thereby we make God unfaithful.

But it is not so. Together, the two priesthoods perfect each other.

Hebrews 7:16, the word carnal has a bad connotation in doctrinal issues. However, the same word in Romans 15:27 and 1 Corinthians 9:11 simply refers to the realm of the physical. The Levitical Priesthood was given by יהוה, not man, and confirmed by His prophets, but it does pertain to the Earth as opposed to the Melchisedecian one which has passed into the Heavens.

Verse eighteen is difficult, disannulling is too strong a word choice in my opinion. When you think of annulling it is as if something never was, but that is not the case. In Mark 7:9 did the religious elite annul the commandment of God? Did the Pharisees and Scribes of Luke 7:30 annul God's counsel? If you reject Yeshua does He cease to exist (John 12:48)? The original is not erased, but it does undergo a status change. Yes, the Levitical Priesthood's status does change because a greater one has become the pinnacle. Moses was _the_ Moses, but Yeshua without erasing Him has eclipsed him. In fact, Luke 7:28 says that no greater prophet was born than John the Baptist, so John eclipsed Moses without erasing Moses. Yet, the one who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is _greater_ than John. So John was eclipsed (while on Earth) by anyone who was in the kingdom of Heaven, without erasing John or Moses who both being in the kingdom now are no doubt greater than the least in the Kingdom.

In verse twenty-two, what used to be a problem begins to be "so what?" In verse eighteen, we saw the Levites were changed in status, not canceled but eclipsed. The command was weak and unprofitable? Sure, because the command was never meant to achieve the goal by itself. Which verse nineteen confirmed that nothing was made perfect by it, but it did bring in a better hope. It was given with something else in mind. That something else came with the command as the foundation. Yeshua is the guarantor of the better covenant! We can agree with all of this easily and say with praise on our lips that God is faithful and the Melchisedecian order better because it stands on what God ordained first. It takes that springboard, performs a perfect dismount from the Pommel vault horse and sticks the landing. Praise God, a perfect 10!

### Hebrews 8

This chapter was my original dread. My original reason for not wanting to study this book. There is a verse in here that at the time I could not see how it could be in scripture and the book not being thrown out as counterfeit. There was no way in my mind that this verse could be reconciled to the rest of scripture.

Maybe that is why the Spirit did not have Paul open with that verse instead worked to it, before the witness of a scripturally literate, God fearing, reader audience. As I approached this verse, but before I studied the previous two chapters, God gave me an understanding of it that I believe prepared me for what was born out in the previous passages. And I think it transforms the verse from one of moral dilemma to one of, "How beautiful are God's ways? How marvelous are His works?"

Verses 1-2. Paul summarizes that we have a priest who is at work in a tabernacle which יהוה has made, thus again we see His ministry is in the Heavens. He is literally in a higher priesthood than the Levitical, but not one that negates the promise to Aaron and his sons. Notice, the confirmation in verse four, "If [Yeshua] were on Earth, he should not be a priest, seeing _that there are priests . . . according to the Torah_." Again in the present tense, Yeshua's more excellent ministry does not cross covenant lines given to the Earthly. This jurisdictional acknowledgment co-exists with the declaration that the Priest of Heaven is greater and the Earthly patterned after the greater (3-5).

So this image that I feel God has given to me . . . Skip to the last verse of the chapter, Paul says, "In that he saith, A new _covenant,_ he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old _is_ ready to vanish away", emphasis in the original. At the face value, through the lens of modern Christianity, this is in complete conflict with the precedent of scripture. God can simply cast aside any previous covenant simply be declaring a new one? Rather, I think this is one of those marvelous things, which we have already seen the tip of.

Begin by taking the word "new". In Greek the word for something recent (new) is " _neos_." As in Matthew 9:17's "new wine." But the word in Hebrews 8 is not _neos_ , but " _kainos_ ". Rather than recent it more especially refers to _freshness_. It is difficult to see the distinction because recent new and fresh new usually coincide, but consider the _kainos_ wine bottles of Matthew 9:17. To see the contrast, understand that the reason an old bottle would burst is two fold. For one, the use of wine in it has already stretched the leather and stressed the seams. Second, the leather has aged, losing its tenacity and gaining creases as skin is prone to do. The reason it bursts is because it has already been _used_. But if you had a bottle that was very old, but had somehow been preserved from the ravages of age and use it would still be able to hold new wine even though it was old. It is the wear, not the time, that is the difference between old and fresh. This is easier to see in the Hebrew.

Chapter eight is referencing Jeremiah 31 from the Tanakh. In verse 31, the word for "new" is " _chadash_ ". It is a noun meaning a new or fresh thing, but it comes from a verb " _chadash_ " (different vowel points) meaning to be new caused by _rebuilding_ as in 1 Samuel 11:14 when they wanted to renew the kingdom after it had been stressed by Saul; 2 Chronicles 15:8 where King Asa rebuilt the altar of the Temple; 2 Chronicles 24:4, Josiah wanted to repair the Temple. If you have a familiarity with Hebraic roots, you might know that the word for month, " _chodesh_ ", also comes from _chadash_.

Not to conduct an education in Hebrew, but that is where this picture comes into clarity. _Rosh Hashanah_ is the "head of the year", _Rosh Chodesh_ is the "head of the month", and so you could say it is the "head of the new". Now what is made new every month? What is rebuilt every month? The moon. The Biblical monthly cycle is lunar, not an arbitrary division of the solar year. Every month, the moon begins as a sliver, building each day until it is _full_. Then it decays into darkness, its light being less and appearing for a shorter time each day.

I believe the covenant is like that. Am I saying that the Old Covenant is fading? Faded? Gone, even? Yes.

And no.

Is that half opposite of what I've been saying this whole time? Yes and no.

Let me ask you . . . When the New Moon appears, which moon is it? Isn't it the same moon that just went dark? The same moon that before that was full? Earlier still was new itself? Isn't this the same moon that God put in motion on the fourth day of creation? Yes . . .

Then if it is new, is it not also old?

While pondering that, remember the scriptures. How many times does God talk about "covenants"? In the plural specifically? If you search, the plural only occurs in letters written to peoples who were not raised in a Hebraic environment (Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians). What does God say everywhere else? God only speaks about one covenant at a time, and yet each covenant as we saw is described as everlasting. I think that is like the moon, there is only one covenant, but it has phases and cycles. As the moon, the covenant is eternal, but it is made new, builds, waxes, wanes, and rebuilds. This explains why every covenant guarantees the ones that preceded it, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Each new covenant is simply a new month, like a new layer of paint on a canvas, stroke by stroke bringing the work to perfection (completeness). This explains how each covenant can be everlasting and yet only one is ever giving its light at one time. And it explains, how a covenant can be weak (waning) and ready to vanish. Each new covenant is all of the covenants before it made fresh again.

And this is a blessed thing because again it shows God's faithfulness. He has not abandoned a single one of his promises. He has not annulled any of the hope of His servants. He has shown himself powerful! Consider that the same type of _new_ is the description of you and I as new creation. What hope would there be for us if the new us was the destruction of the one who believed, to be replaced by another that had never yearned for salvation? The old is made new. And that is why we can look forward to a New Heaven and a New Earth and a New Name because we have had an old, worn out, Heaven and Earth and Name. I understand people are afraid to pin down the world to come. But God says they are fresh versions of the things we love now _because_ we love those things now. God designed us to love the Earth, and our husbands, our wives, our children, our friends, and our own bodies when they are _fresh_. But as we age and get worn out. We stop wanting what it is we have had. We forget what was good. In a sense, we slander the Promised Land because we say our bodies weren't good and thus a new _body_ —which we cannot separate from the toil we now know—would be one which eateth up the inhabitant thereof. And what happens? Despite our best efforts we begin to disparage the promises because we have been designed as bodies and souls and spirits to desire a paradise of all three.

Yes, the old covenant is faded, and perhaps even gone, but after the dark it has built again. As will each of us and every good thing that has waned in the darkness of this world. Remember the promises of Yeshua, "I make all things _kainos_."

### Hebrews 9

Chapter nine, continues the thought that the Earthly is like the Heavenly. Moses was _commanded_ to make the Tabernacle on Earth like the one he had seen on the mount, the Heavenly one (Hebrews 8:2). Thus the Earthly tabernacle is a prophetic representation of the Heavenly reality (8:5). The Tabernacle stood as a kind of thumbnail of the spiritual relationship between God and His people.

9:7-8 shows that the High Priest passed through the second veil once a year into the Holy of Holies where stood the Mercy Seat ("Covering" from the same word as _kippur_ as in Yom Kippur). Paul says by this the Holy Spirit was indicating that the way to the Holy of Holies, and therefore the presence of God and the Atonement, was not clearly seen. This explains why when Messiah died the veil was torn in the Temple. The way to the Atonement and the Presence of God _was made manifest_ , therefore, God keeping His own commandment was changing the Temple so that it was _after the pattern_ of the Heavenly. It begs the question if perhaps this is the reason why Ezekiel's Temple has no mention of a veil of separation?

Hebrews 9:9 is important. Remember there has been no annulling of the Levitical order, only an eclipsing. A New Moon has been built after it. Notice, Paul says that the service of the Earthly priests with the Earthly tabernacle could not make one perfect, "as pertaining to the conscience." I believe that is key. In the modern church, we have neglected the body as Paul warned in Colossians not to do. We have made it all about saving souls, and then our souls will fly away to live in Heaven forever . . . forgetting that part about a resurrection of the body; seeing no purpose in a New Earth; forgetting the prophecies of promised feasts, vineyards, fig trees, and houses which God promised by the same prophets who told us of the Messiah. I believe the enemy thinks it is very important to separate God's promises and truths from any physical reality. God made the physical and spiritual to mirror each other and to be unified. Yet, we act as if our physical has nothing to do with the spiritual; one does not teach us about the other; our spiritual future will have nothing to do with our physical present, so all the things that we actually enjoy in life are . . . in life . . . We find it difficult to look forward to the promised land because apparently God doesn't care about meat, garlic, or cucumbers. No wonder it is so hard to live as "strangers and pilgrims" here, when we think that the world has a monopoly on every thing we actually enjoy.

Verse nine shows that the Heavenly Priesthood is ministering to the same purpose but in a different fashion. The Earthly could not cause perfection because it could not touch the conscience, but what about another purpose? God said that it did bring about forgiveness and atonement. Are we missing the most obvious possibility that the divided Heavens and Earth might each need a tabernacle until the future day when New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven and the two are united in a single ministry, in a single Temple, in a place where God dwells with man?

Remember your history! Before the Golden Calves, God's intent was to dwell in the midst of Israel. After the abomination, יהוה said He wanted the Tabernacle pitched away from the camp (Exodus 33). It is only by Moses's intercession that יהוה agrees not to entirely remove the manifestation of His presence. The point is that our uncleanness as creatures of body, soul, and spirit has required God to stay at a distance, either removing us, himself, or hiding in darkness and clouds and veils. He cannot dwell with sin (Psalm 5:4). Consider the warning, if you will defile the land (which has the mountain of God's inheritance) by breaking God's Torah, it will vomit you out (Leviticus 18:28 & 20:22); do not be defiled because among His people is where יהוה dwells (Numbers 35:34, Deuteronomy 23:13-14). Consider the promises: God is bringing His people to a mountain where He will dwell with his people (Exodus 15:17); the place you will bring your sacrifices will be the place where יהוה will dwell (Deuteronomy 12:11); who shall enter His tabernacle to dwell with יהוה, the upright (Psalm 15:1). What hinders the return of God to His people? And us inheriting the promises?

What was the purpose of the Tabernacle and the Earthly priests of Aaron? They were for יהוה to sanctify the people so that they would know He is יהוה, and so He might dwell among them. The reason for the Tabernacle on Earth was so that God could dwell with us physically (Exodus 29:43-46). Isn't that why the presence of יהוה departed in Ezekiel's visions? Because the Temple service was mixed idolatry?

And why did Yeshua come? And more importantly, why did He go to a tabernacle _up there_? Psalm 68:18, "Thou hast ascended _on high_ , thou hast lead captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; _yea for the rebellious also,_ that יהוה Eloheim _might dwell among them_." (Emphasis mine.)

I submit to you that there are two tabernacles because we are a composite unity of flesh and soul. I would even suggest that as we are body, soul, _and spirit_ , that we need a third Tabernacle; and that one God has provided. Was John being metaphorical when he recorded Yeshua speaking of His body as a Temple (John 2:21)? Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 said we are the Temple not of the Son or Father, but specifically the Spirit; a ministry in which we are priests. One Tabernacle or Temple works the process of cleansing our flesh and land, another our souls, and a third our Spirit. All working to the same perfection (and therefore imperfect apart), making us fit for God to dwell among us.

My wife Alisa said something the other day, which I thought was profound. I had said that the covenants were designed to be imperfect. She asked rhetorically, how could they be perfect? They are made with _us_! I think that was spot on, divine revelation. How can God complete His covenant and promises while we remain incomplete? At the moment when we are complete, the promises can then also be complete. The removal of sin in us is all God needs to bestow on us all inheritance! And if that was so, then God would dwell with us. Why would the Heaven above need to stay there? Why would Spirit and Body and Soul be disjointed? They would not! The message of the Tabernacles is that God has been preparing a Way that brings us all back into unity! Three sanctified tabernacles, one above, one below, and one of our body, all part of the same purpose.

Now what makes Yeshua's ministry higher than the others? Certainly, the offering was better being as it was His sinless blood and not blood of bulls and goats; and the place where it was brought was higher, but what does it accomplish? Hebrews 9:13 confirms that the blood of bulls and goats and ashes _did_ purify the flesh, and in contrast, verse 14, "How much more shall the blood of Messiah . . . purge your _conscience_ from dead works to serve the living God?" The aim and greatness of Yeshua's ministry is not the flesh.

Why is that better than the flesh? Was God giving the Levites an honor that was just busy work? No! God does not do busy work! The word conscience, unfortunately, has only one translated use in the Tanakh. Ecclesiastes 10:20 where the Hebrews is " _madda_ " (intelligence) from the root " _yada_ " (intimate knowing by sight). However, that still leads some where. The word for naked (and for subtle) in Genesis 2-3 has a pictographic thought of "seeing or beholding the real person"; which makes sense of the phrase "Adam _knew_ ( _yada_ ) his wife, and she conceived." It also makes sense of why sinful fallen man was so quick to make something to cover his body, while sinless man had no problem baring it all.

Ever since being evicted from Eden, we have been conscious of our sin, which is what makes our nudity offensive to many of us. Something in our physical nudity reminds most us of our fallen state outside of Messiah (the physical parallels the spiritual). Man was the one who hurried to cover up because _he did not like_ what he saw; we do not want our true selves to be seen—or at least what we see to be seen. But we were naked before and yet not offending ourselves because we were not _conscious_ of any sin.

Yet even when we do right, we do not feel restored. Perhaps we cannot forget that the weakness is still present?

There are many ways to look at it, but despite the forgiveness, always available by faith (and worked out by the Levitical priesthood), we continue to drag around burdens that God told us are no longer ours. In the here and now, we do continue to _sin_. We continued to be aware, to be _conscious_ of ourselves (Greek " _suneidēsis_ " means "seeing yourself") as a flawed failure that will never be right.

But through the Holy Spirit, we _have_ the power to do right all the time, and by the blood of Yeshua our self-perception can be purged also. He can, and will, return us to the beginning. We can be naked and unashamed again. And how He does this is marvelous. Consider Romans 2:13-15 again. The doers of the Torah are justified and not the only-hearers. The so-called Gentiles sometimes act according to Torah which _shows_ the Torah written in the heart (a promise of the New Covenant). Their conscience then accuses or excuses them. In Acts 23:1 and 24:16, in the matter of the Temple visit, Paul says his conscience found no offense. The point is the Torah is still the standard, and in relation to it the conscience is pricked or not pricked. I point that out because I have heard the doctrine that what Hebrews is talking about is that Yeshua simply wants you to be unconscious of sin. If you tell a lie, you should not be aware of it as sin. Steal? Murder? Yeshua just wants you to not notice.

I am being a little tongue and cheek, but that is the doctrine as it is presented to me. But with the Torah remaining the standard, consciousness of sin remains based upon the presence or absence of sin, not ignorance of it. How then can Yeshua make us not conscious? By making us not sinners and purging what has been.

The difference between the Levitical Priesthood and the Melchisedecian Priesthood is that one is working on the outside in the moment and another on the inside, crossing time. Now, watch this, where does sin come from? Yeshua says all sin starts in the heart. Ok. So if Yeshua purges the heart, if Yeshua _perfects_ the heart . . . then wouldn't the outside follow suit? Remember, how every covenant guarantees the one before? Here we have two (and the third) Tabernacle ministries each perfecting the other! Suppose, you were Paul going to the Temple to make sacrifice in Acts 21-24. Paul had a good conscience, void of offense, which shows the evidence of Yeshua's work as the High Priest in Heaven. Paul was obeying a command of the Torah following his Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, and now going to the Temple to complete it. So his conscience is clean (by Yeshua's work in the Tabernacle above) as he obeys the Torah (by the Spirit's power in the Temple of his body) while _doing something physically with his body_ in the Temple ministered by the sons of Aaron, which was a work which brought glory to the Father.

Do you see how that is not three things being done, but a threefold cord of a single choice? Paul did not go to three different temples and perform three different rituals, he did one thing which was obedience on Earth and it was _paralleled_ in three places. That is why it was so important to understand that the sacrifices, which God promised would bring forgiveness, only worked when the people's hearts were in it. True obedience to any command requires threefold unity. Any sacrifice to be effective needed threefold unity. To quote Messiah "in spirit and in truth." That is why only with Yeshua's work can we serve God (Hebrews 9:14). God is not asking for more work, nor is He disregarding Earthly promised work, He is bringing all things into the unity of one Work.

Hebrews 9:15-17 seems to be a matter of controversy to some. I think this is a matter of confusion about a couple of things. Some question whether Paul is being intentionally or unintentionally imprecise in this chapter. Some wonder if the golden censor is the altar of incense, which would be incorrect since the altar was outside the veil. This is remedied by understanding the censor as that, a censor, not the altar, not a fixed furnishing, but the utensil for carrying incense by the High Priest on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:12-13).

The next question is "testator" or as some literal translations have it "him having covenanted." The problem is reading this to mean the one who makes the covenant must die. Obviously this is not true, Paul goes on to show that the covenant in Moses's day was ratified by blood, but neither Messiah nor Moses died that day. The KJV and other translations get it right that it is the death of a covenant-victim that confirms the covenant. It is kind of like saying, the deal is not sealed until there is a signature on the line.

However, it seems this is not always true. When the covenant of the Levitical Priesthood is confirmed to Aaron's son Phinehas, God declares He is giving Phinehas a covenant of peace. There is no mention of death, here (in terms of sacrifice). A better understanding of the term covenant might help. In Hebrew it is " _brit_ ". _Brit_ means "cutting." Not death, but cutting. In fact it comes from the word " _barah_ " meaning to "select." Or to feed. You almost have the sense of two people sitting down at a table, and there is only agreement when one person cuts a drumstick off the meal and hands it to the guest. It gives an interesting _flavor_ to the idea of breaking bread.

I point to this idea of cutting, because in the word _shalom_ in Numbers 25:12, the _vav_ is "cut." In a Kosher scroll all letters are required to be legible and uniform, but there are certain anomalies that have been preserved through the ages. This is one of them. There are different (good) interpretations of this cutting. For example, _shalom_ (peace) without the _vav_ becomes _shalem_ (perfect). Is God saying that service must be perfect to be granted peace? Further, some interpret that the line does not need to go all the way through. Is God saying the covenant is of peace but . . . not yet . . . because Phinehas was perhaps too quick to be violent in execution? Waiting for one who would be perfect? Perhaps even waiting for the true one of whom even Phinehas was a shadow? Take it as you will. My point is a covenant is given here with a "cutting", but no bloodshed.

Perhaps the covenant of peace could not be made with bloodshed?

Just to keep things interesting, another interpretation occurred to me while studying this. If all covenants are, in fact, one covenant . . . then is it possible that the blood of Moses's day was symbolic, and the actual enforcing power was from Yeshua's blood? Is it possible that all covenant _expressions_ , manifestations, givings, were in fact only enacted on the blood that would be spilt thousands of years later? This has the ring of some truth, but since Paul points to the Mosaic sprinkling of blood as its dedication, and the quote from Moses that "this is the blood of the covenant", one must decide if that could be true but serving as the substitution for the Messiah's blood which would come, rather than the blood itself ratifying the covenant?

Better back out before we slip into the black hole of mystical truthness.

All of those interpretations sound plausible to me . . . the last even one especially, but 9:15-16 should in no way cause alarm.

Hebrews 9 closes out, detailing how the Earthly is patterned after the Heavenly; down here cleansing was needed, up there cleansing was needed. Thinking about this pattern, does something strike you? Something odd? When Yeshua died, remember how the veil was torn signifying that the Way to the presence of God was now clear?

If the death of Messiah as our atonement was the end of the Levitical service . . . why didn't the Temple fall down? It should not be a surprise to us, that God merely amends the pattern. The Temple, though it was destroyed by the Roman forces, was only recalibrated by God to reflect a Heavenly reality. Isn't Yeshua ever-living to make intercession on our behalf (Romans 8:34 & Hebrews 7:25)? So then rather than the Priests and Temple being destroyed, isn't it needful more for the _pattern_ that the Priests return to show the continuing pattern above?

I think the theme of Pattern in Hebrews rather than saying be done with the Levites is evidence for why their ministry is important. Does this make sense of why you never heard Yeshua or any of His Apostles, sermonizing against the Temple and the Priests? Does it make sense of why Paul rebuked Himself for speaking-ill of the High Priest? The Messiah and His followers all, honored the Priests and Temple as ordained from God, this makes perfect sense if you view it in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture.

### Hebrews 10

For me, the major questions of this book have been answered. What remains is simply adjusting reading to fit the scriptural history. Verses one and two are what we surmised earlier. That sacrifices did not bring people to perfection because that was not the point. But, _if_ they had then they would cease to offer because there would be no _conscience_ of sin. At perfection, you no longer sin; no longer sin so you are not conscious of it.

This is a doctrine of hope, if we cling to it. I do not believe anyone has been perfected in this life . . . though I am not staunch on that . . . but I believe that every believer in Messiah is able to be perfected, because Messiah in them is able to accomplish it. And, if I am wrong and someone has been perfected, then it is only by the power of Messiah that it was achieved. By no means will anyone stand justified without Him. But, this passage culminates in 10:14, "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." Yeshua is doing a work in us that can never be undone. One day we will be without sin. One day, it will be so gone from us that we are not even conscious of it. Yeshua's offering gets so far down even our shame is cleaned away.

Paul shows us from Psalm 40, why Yeshua's cleansing was so powerful. It was because what God desired was someone to do His will. That shedding of blood was not important, it was the act of obedience that was important, from the heart to the hands. Even Yeshua's blood would not have been important without His obedience. So what Yeshua really offered was faithfulness which by the will of God and His blood for a covenant, sanctified us just as the Torah testified.

And by His blood our sins are remitted. Not just forgiven, but taken away. See, the promise of forgiveness always existed. Eventually it was guaranteed "in writing" under the Tabernacle ministry, though available even without. But forgiveness alone never stopped us from sinning. Forgiveness alone never made us perfect. Now, the Way to be perfect has been paid for, so let us draw near (Hebrews 10:22). Having our hearts sprinkled (as when the covenant was given before to our people), and our bodies washed (as one would do when approaching the Tabernacle or Temple, to be clean). Again Paul returns to full assurance (22), and holding fast the profession because He is faithful (23).

There come the stern warnings of 10:25-31. If you believe it means you can lose your salvation, then do not sin willfully. If you do not believe so, there is certainly a fiery time ahead for the stiff neck of the body. Which ever side you fall on, do notice that he goes back to the Torah—again, referencing that which he was falsely accused of teaching was done away with. The doctrine he is referencing can be found in Numbers 15, where it tells that there is forgiveness for ignorance, but not for presumption. יהוה will not justify the wicked.

But that is not Paul's point, nor ours. I just mentioned it because it is one of the many verses that make sense only in a world view consistent with Torah. Paul moves on to happier subjects, thanking the readers for their help in his bonds and encouraging them in their own afflictions, reminding them of the rewards to come for the faithful. It is amazing that Paul continues to draw hope from scripture from the beginning to his imprisoned present. He does not cast away any of the promises, but finds how they are all part of the Faithful God's one plan.

### Hebrews 11

And that constant recalling of what God has done, and how God's people have endured through faith, is only getting warmed up. What comes next is the chapter we are all familiar with. The hard doctrinal questions are behind us, though they were clearly things both the reader and writer knew, though the readers had forgotten for a time. Paul continues reveling in recounts of the great examples of faith. Champions on Earth who showed, not their greatness, but their great hope in God.

All of it comes back to remembering the promises of God. That is why I believe it is such a damnable heresy to speak of the resurrection the way some teach. To make it intangible, ethereal, anti-physical, it sounds spiritual but only if you buy into the lie that flesh is bad and spirit is good. But in the beginning God made man a body and then corrected the only "not good" thing when He added a second (no doubt spectacular) human body. All of God's promises concerning what comes are things that we have known, but better. Hebrews 11:13-16, a city? A country? These are nouns that mean space, land, habitation. Do you see the pattern of the enemy? Torah: gives you here, now, instructions on how to live physically well on a physical world (though also by the _Peh_ clearly teaching of the world above) with _promises_ to look forward too—Torah's out. Levitical Priesthood, which God _promised_ and gave as a way to cleanse our physical realm—that's out. Heaven and the Resurrection defined as an endless sing-a-long in the sky, where you don't have a real body, and if you do it doesn't do anything bodies really do like eat, sleep, work, hug, kiss, lift—that's in. There your children probably won't remember you; and if they do, it will be a different, sexless, alien person looking back at them.

The Adversary is constantly interested in degrading the _promises_ and _warnings_ of God. But what did the patriarchs do? What did the prophets say? That there is a really good place that we will really live in with really real bodies eating delicious grapes, figs, and at least twelve other kinds of fruit beside clear water in the paradise of a golden city that can never be threatened, with all of the people who actually possess the goodness which we love in the world now. And more! Those patriarchs, who believed in such a promise, were willing to forsake what they could see and touch because of it.

The only thing about the world to come that the scriptures really teach that we cannot know, is the more that will be there, not the less. It is better than we can imagine, but it is not less than we can imagine. Why did God spend so much time telling us how great it would be and giving us so many pictures of it, if He did not want us to meditate on it? That meditation builds hope because we can imagine goodness, not because we can imagine a vacuum and just trust God will make it a "good vacuum." I am not suggesting that we should start building doctrines and arguments about the New Heavens and New Earth. God knows we do not need new things to divide over. But the strength of the heroes was not based on inarticulate trust that God would do good vague things, it was based on the concrete. Faith is the _substance_ of things _hoped for_ , the _evidence_ of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Abraham trusted that if God took Isaac that God would restore _Isaac_ , not simply do _some_ thing _good_ at _some_ point (11:17-18). Faith in general might get you through the day to day, but will it allow you to subdue kingdoms? Raise the dead? Quench fire? Endure stoning? Be sawed in half? Wander the earth in animal skins and be mocked?

11:39-40 are an interesting close. He says the reason those who came before did not receive the promise was because God had yet to give something stronger for us (apparently, the New Covenant and the Heavenly Priesthood). God delays some aspects of His plan so that perfection does not come. He stays the promises for a time. Why? So that we can all be made perfect together. Again, we see that God treats all of His people as one. He did not have a different way with different promises for Noah, Moses, and David. We all come to the inheritance by the same way. We all are saved by faith. We all come to perfection together. And until then, we all wait together.

### Hebrews 12 & 13

Since no one has yet come to perfection (Hebrews 11:40), they are apparently standing around waiting. Perhaps that is why the saints in Heaven ask, "How long, O Lord?" They watch what transpires with God's people and wait. If there was any doubt if those in Heaven know what is going on, Hebrews 12:1 and Revelation 6:10 seem to clearly say that they are witnessing it. While we are used to thinking of God watching us, I, at least, have not thought of the whole crowd of the Congregation watching us. Right now, the Apostles, Moses, Elijah, David, Mary Magdalene, they are all witnessing like the crowd alongside the race course. Run with patience. Remembering those others and the Author and Finisher, we should not faint for what we have to endure.

Concerning our subject matter, there is not much more to say, but this idea of promises of the hope of the Patriarchs is transfixing. I have been thinking how in the hardest times of my faith, it was this hope that pulled me through. I owe a lot to Randy Alcorn and his book _Heaven_ which is the thickest and most joy-generating work I have ever read on the subject4. With the promises before your eyes, you can endure the loss of any of the shakable things of Earth. I suppose that is why it is such a sore subject with me when I hear the promises turned into something vague and ethereal. You simply cannot cling to intangible things. That is why they are called _intangible_. What pulled me through was immersing myself in the promises, actually meditating on them, imagining them. I think the accounts of the saints teach a similar practice. What would our days be like if for part of our daily devotions, we took away some of the scripture reading or praying and just sat quietly and imagined what the Resurrection would be like? What a New Earth would be? What that City on Mount Zion might look like? See it as clearly as you can . . . Don't get hung up on making a theological construct, remember the promises; houses, children, vineyards, fig trees, fruit, light, no pain, no sorrow, no death, Yeshua, no more work that gets eaten up by thorns. No more strife between men and women, between anyone and anyone else. Just meditate on it.

That is why Torah is so important because God cares _now_ what you like, what you desire, what matters to you. He designed it to be so. Thus, you can trust that He knows what you desire in the age to come, and these are all pictures of those things He is bringing. The _Fresh_ _You_ is not a different person, it is you _made New_. You can trust that everything in life that is good will be there, _made New_. Yeshua makes _all things new_ , not _all new things_.

Chapter thirteen rounds out with some basic encouragements, all of which can be seen within the _Peh_ of Torah. Interestingly, Paul links this conduct to being able to say יהוה is my helper, and follows this with the affirmation, "Yeshua is the same _yesterday_ , today, and forever." That sentiment contains both the thesis of my book—that God is consistent—and a major theme of Hebrews, that God is faithful. He is clearly attaching the idea that יהוה is my helper, with Yeshua's constancy. Of course! Yeshua is יהוה! The same Yeshua who is our High Priest of a greater sacrifice in the Heavenly Tabernacle is the same יהוה who gave the Torah and promised the sons of Aaron a priesthood forever. You can count on יהוה's promises _because_ He does not change.

In conclusion, not only does Hebrews fall in line with the rest of the canon, it also reaffirms the promises of God. The whole book shows how God continued to work through more and more revelation until the appearing of His Son. He was seeding the world over and over again with pictures of the relationship He is mending, and the hope of a renewed world. A work which even now He is doing. And with each new stage, He never abandoned His hopes and dreams from the previous. Each stage was anticipated by the one before it. Each was imperfect without its other, even now, the New would be imperfect without the Old. And even now, they are each meant to work in unity, not one replacing the other.

God never gave up on Eden. That is the message of Hebrews.

## Rediscovering the New

##  What Need is There for Messiah?

As I wrote this study, I have been reminded of several questions that were never satisfactorily answered for me. Pursuing this study forced me to take them out and dust them off and seek God for those answers. And I am glad, now, that He moved me to do so. I have asked myself as I studied the scriptures from front to back, if none of this has changed (the responsibility and the blessing of keeping Torah), then what has changed? I think we can after Hebrews especially, that much has.

Yet, perhaps while a nuts-and-bolts sense, this book has shown Yeshua is supremely important, perhaps you still feel that maybe the Torah has pushed the Messiah aside? Perhaps, you have had an opportunity to visit a Messianic Jewish congregation and felt that it was worshipping an old book or a Jewish way of life, instead of the Messiah? My mother has often asked me, "Where is Christ in your beliefs?" The Torah it seems, emotionally, swallows up all need for Messiah.

God forbid.

We have already seen that before Yeshua's ministry and the giving of the Spirit, people were able to do right—and that standard has not changed. Even forgiveness was available before Yeshua came. So from this perspective, is Yeshua really a big deal? And if so, what makes Him the big deal? Why is He the Chief Cornerstone?

Remember what we have seen about covenants. One does not replace the previous, it guarantees it. When Adam died, he could be saved because he had faith in God that a redeemer was coming through the seed of Eve. When Noah received the covenant the promise that יהוה would not utterly destroy all life by a flood (and presumably by so great magnitude of any means) He guaranteed that there would be people to receive that redemption. When Abraham received the covenant it was guaranteed that there was going to be a specific people and a specific place into which the redeemer would come, and a way of life that that Messiah would step into. With Moses the definition of the way of life and the justice that would be satisfied was defined, thus guaranteeing that God could accept a payment on the behalf of those of faith.

See, yes, all people before Yeshua (and after) have access to forgiveness, but if Yeshua never came (which would be impossible because it would require יהוה to break His promise) then there would be no _Way_ to justify to a Holy God that all those people could be forgiven on faith (sacrifice or no sacrifice). That was the veil in the Temple. How would God make this just?

Yeshua was the payment that justified forgiveness being extended to all who would call on the name of יהוה.

So in the first place, Yeshua is a big deal because His coming, death, and resurrection seals forever that God is " _just_ and _faithful_ to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." His coming is an immeasurable declaration that יהוה has kept and will keep His promise. That is important because some of His promise we are still waiting for. We are still waiting for the redemption of creation. We still wait for the end of iniquity. We still wait for the return of our immortality. We still wait for God to dwell among us.

I cannot help thinking as I write this that the fall feasts are near, and that those are themes of the fall feasts.

What else? What in the practical? In the day-to-day? I do not know why we should think that Yeshua being a big deal would change the standards. Since when has God been concerned with changing standards? Hasn't His stated goal always been changing _us_? I think the answer in some ways is missing the idea of substitution. Substitution is all over scripture, like Torah, from beginning to end.

The seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. When Eve had Cain his name meant "striking fast", and she said "because I have received a man from יהוה." It has been inferred she was looking for Cain to be the redeemer. She expected redemption quickly. Abel, on the other hand, meant vanity or from "going astray." Clearly Abel was not astray, was Eve despairing because Cain was already showing himself as one who would not be the seed to conquer the serpent? Seth, Eve said was "appointed" another of the _seed_ in Abel's stead ( _tachath_ ).

The first thing I see in that is that Eve is looking for a redeemer, the promised seed to crush the deceiver's and therefore the deception (seed and fruit). She is looking for the Seed who would destroy the works of the enemy, by implication the curse. To crush the work, the Seed must win where Eve and Adam failed. In other words, she is looking for someone to stand in their place. A substitute. Note even the understanding of this in the idea of _tachath_. We saw that in an eye for an eye; Seth was a seed for a seed. Notice also who is making this "restitution"? יהוה.

יהוה has appointed a seed in place of a seed.

From the beginning we were looking for a substitute. The thing about the substitute is that we have only clung to one half of it. We think of Yeshua as our substitute in terms of taking our place as the object of God's righteous wrath. On the _cross_ , Messiah took the full blow to satisfy justice for every sin that would ever be forgiven. I qualify that with "would ever be" because I do not believe His payment was for every sin. How could it be? If the unrepentant sinner is damned to an eternity or at least a long period ending in total destruction, how could it be paid for on the cross? Or even in three days in the grave?

I am saying that Yeshua died only for the sins of many (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:27-28). I believe that He died for all that would repent (Exodus 23:7), that is a finite number because they stop sinning as God delivers them, not in-a-day, but in-evitable. Meanwhile the unrepentant never stop sinning. In fact they cannot. And I would argue this is the difference between "death" and "judgment". Yeshua was offered once, because men die once and then the judgment. Yeshua died (was offered) once on behalf of those who repent, but when He was judged He was found guiltless, that is why He did not stay dead, and why His mission was finished on the cross and not in the grave. He went into the grave to prove He was dead; to give Pilate time to secure the grave so it could be proven He left the grave; and while He was down there to preach to the dead and receive the keys of Death and Hell. The grave was part of the victory lap.

That caveat of "for many" is important because it shows God was not wasting His son's sacrifice on the unrepentant. He could have died and forgiven everyone, couldn't he? Regardless of faith? Certainly, He could. Since He did not, that demonstrates that the point was repentance, not forgiveness.

A new life is in view. Yeshua did not die to leave us as we were. So when we think of substitution, we neglect to identify with our substitute. In this case with the Messiah who died, thus _we are dead_. Did not Paul say that about a thousand times? We are dead with Messiah? For what purpose? That we might live _with Him_ (Romans 6:8, Galatians 2:19, 2 Timothy 2:11). The other side of the substitution is that not only did He take our place in death, He takes it in life. He did not just die so that you could be "reckoned as righteous", but that you would "live" as righteous because He lives through you (1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 4:6).

Consider the difference. Forgiveness was always available, with or without sacrifice. Yes, God coupled forgiveness with sacrifice (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35), but it was always impossible that the blood of an animal alone could _cause_ forgiveness, let along accomplish the goal of forgiveness (Isaiah 66:3, Psalm 51:6, Isaiah 1:11). It was always יהוה who did the forgiving but not because He owed us based on the blood. It was always based on faith and faith precedes righteous action as it did with Abraham. So why was there bloodshed? It was not for forgiveness; it was for atonement. What's the difference? Atonement is "covering".

Imagine two believers have an injury between them. One wronged the other. The one who is wronged is not to hold a grudge, by necessity they must forgive because יהוה commands it for their good. On the other side, the one who has done the wrong, _but is already forgiven_ , must make restitution. They must "make it good". All God's commandments show His character do they not?

Indeed, atonement then is not forgiveness, which has already taken place, it is restitution. I am forgiven, but I am still repairing the damage to your car to make peace between us, I am "covering" the offense. When a sacrifice was made it was for restitution to God (still an act of mercy on God's part. Restitution always is). If a person approached without confession of sin—without acknowledging what was truly done—it was approaching without faith because it said the act of bloodshed caused forgiveness (justification by works) and not the undeserved mercy of God (faith). The reason sacrifices became abominable was because they were being offered without faith and thus the offense remained. How could restitution be made? "I didn't really hurt you, but here's some stuff so you'll feel better." Restitution cannot be made without confession and forgiveness anymore than repentance can be made without turning back the heart.

So before Yeshua, forgiveness was always available, but atonement/restitution was difficult to make, at times impossibly difficult. And why is restitution so important? Is God hurt when we destroy something of His? Can He not just as easily make it a second time? Of course. If God is hungry, He does not need to tell you. The point is _we need to make restitution_. Why? Because when we sin we break fellowship with God, but when we make restitution we are doing righteousness, and righteousness can only come from God. Restoring fellowship with God is not about paying a debt it is about _living a life_. We are all vessels and when we sin we are filled with evil. To be filled with something good we must both be cleansed from the evil and be re-filled with the good.

That is why it is important not just that we were forgiven, but that Yeshua is our atonement (Romans 5:11, 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10). I cannot go to a temple—especially here in America and doubly since there is no standing temple)—and "make it right" with God even though He _has_ forgiven me. I lack the ability to make restitution both because there is no Temple but also because even those who did offer sacrifice only made restitution in that moment. It did nothing for sins they had forgotten or sins that they _might_ commit or _would_ commit. Restitution offers us opportunity to do righteousness, but without the sacrifice of an animal, we have no _patterned_ way to bring about restitution until we could perform the ritual again.

By analogy, we could think of the problem of forgiveness. God forgave people sins before sacrifice, but there was no _justification_ for the forgiveness because nothing had been offered to pay the debt. Yeshua answers both those problems. Yeshua lived a whole life as a man. He walked through every trial that I did and never needed restitution, and because He died sinless and remains sinless through His unchanging nature as God, when I am _dead_ and He is living through me. The power of restitution is not once or twice or whenever I can get to the Temple, His power is all in all (Ephesians 4:6, Romans 8:37). His offering, not just death but life, justifies both the forgiveness of my sin and the power to restitute it.

The big deal of Yeshua is not just the guarantee of forgiveness, it is _power_. Remission of sins is not about forgiveness. When cancer is in remission is it really still there eating away at the body, but the doctor has simply "written" you a clean bill of healthy? No, the cancer is on the run. It is losing power. It is dying. Life is kicking its spongy white butt right back to where it came from!

And that is why Yeshua said He had to go, so the comforter could come. I don't understand the godly mechanics, but for some reason the Spirit could not come without Yeshua gone. And when the Spirit came, it became power in us. Not to do fireworks and make a spectacle (though that happens in many ways according to His will and glory), but by the Spirit the life of Yeshua becomes our life, or rather our bodies live by His life. Certainly we can resist, we can still choose to sin. We can resurrect our dead man. That is our choice, but the nature that makes restitution is in us in power that daily our forbearers never knew.

Many were righteous and followed יהוה, but notice the Spirit "came upon" people. It was not always there, it visited. Again, I do not understand the mechanics of why the Spirit had to wait since forgiveness was always available, but according to God's perfect will, the Spirit only came upon people at times. But once Yeshua had lived as a man, died sinless, was judged as such, the Father then ordained that the Spirit should be poured out (literally spilled out). Now the power, Yeshua living through us, is always available in every nook and cranny of our lives. It is simply an identity that is "covering" us. We may resist when we sin, but that is the flesh versus the Spirit so we know how that war will end.

We will sin, but it denies the work of God when we say that we cannot help it. Or perhaps it is true, _we_ cannot help it. But Yeshua can.

That is why Yeshua is a big deal. Regardless of when the power came, it is only because Yeshua lived a life of restitution, a life of making peace with the Father as a man, that we have this power. That is why He is the promised Seed.

This does not change the standard of righteousness it just puts it within our grasp. And that leads to the third reason Yeshua is a big deal; He was _The_ Teacher. That makes sense because Torah (Instruction) is _His_ Torah, now we have it explained straight from the source. The children of Israel were afraid to speak with God (Exodus 20:19-20) so they had a man speak for Him, this time יהוה came as a man (like Moses) so the people could hear His words from His own _Peh_.

To redeem those "under the law"—as some say—Yeshua had to live sinlessly by the standard of Torah (and in truth we have seen that He did perfectly keep Torah and also teach others to do so), and yet the moment He died and rose again the standard is alleged to have changed. If that be the case, then what example are we to emulate? The one Yeshua gave is one that belonged to another time and people under a different standard. The lessons that He taught either made sense because of a standard we no longer keep, or they only made sense to an audience that did not exist when He spoke them. Can you recall the sermon from Yeshua that went something like, "Right now, for you it is good to not eat pig and a blessing because of your improper cooking methods, but as soon as the Son of Man has risen again you'll be able to visit the fair and get a pork chop on a stick and that will be good because by then—in about, oh, three weeks—cooking methods will have dramatically changed." That must have been the sermon Peter missed out on.

What use can the example and teachings of Yeshua be to us, if we hold the idea that He was artificially living up to a standard that He thought was about to fade away? For Yeshua's example and teachings to be of use, then we must acknowledge that the same standard applies or we have to metaphorize all of them. When Yeshua honored the Temple as God's house, He really meant the church on every corner (though He never scourged anyone in just a synagogue). When He cited Torah with authority, He really meant the Word, which really meant His own Word that He was speaking at that moment—or actually, it meant everything from Acts 2 on . . . frustratingly that would not be written for decades. When He said His disciples should do what the Pharisees in the capacity of Moses said they should do, He meant . . . well . . . It is hard to imagine any figurative meaning for that parcel, since He is saying it literally with less than four days until He dies on the cross. What could He literally mean for the people standing there? Half of what the Pharisees say is tradition, and Yeshua has been against that. And the other half is Torah which Christians say has less than forty-eight hours to live. So if all that is left is figurative, are the church leaders the figurative Pharisees? Listen to all that the pastor may say? That either means leaders of the church have all the authority claimed by the Pope or the Sanhedrin, to make a new oral law; or they can say things but it is limited by what they _may_ say. And what is the limit of "may" when Yeshua has to be adjusted for speaking under a different standard, and Moses is long gone? All you have is your pastor's interpretation of what the limit is on his own authority? Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

How can anything Yeshua says be cited literally?

Tradition has thusly divided us from our Messiah.

##  How to Keep Torah

The Torah is the Way of God. It is a road. Along this way, there are some legitimate questions to ask. If Torah is still our responsibility, how do we apply it? How do we keep this _Peh_? If there is no division of Torah, what about all the rituals?

As to the _Peh_ , it is somewhat paradoxical. The western mind has trouble with paradoxes, but that does not make them untrue. God loves the world, yet he hated Esau. He is both perfectly just and wholly merciful. God makes good and creates evil (Isaiah 45:7). So though I do not understand it, I believe it is true that יהוה's character is revealed in Torah, and at the same time Torah is understood by the revelation of God's character. We talked about this in "Reconciling our Fears: Torah, Instruction of the Compassionate God".

The key as you will recall is that it is the Spirit giving understanding whether direct revelation, or from the scriptures, or from any means (do you think God can only work through something with a cross somewhere on it?). Whether in prayer or scripture or conversation, whatever the thing, those rituals are simply the way we _live_ the seeking, but the Spirit is giving the understanding and the power. Whether a person is singing or a mute person is dancing, they are both means of working out gratitude given by the Spirit. And that is the point of all life, working out the glory of God.

So it is with the _Peh_. The Ink Strokes do not teach you the _Peh_ , but the Spirit reveals the _Peh_ _from_ them. The Torah reveals God's character because the Spirit is dividing the joints and marrow, and likewise revealed character is applied by the Spirit to the written Torah. I cannot tell you how many things, He has taught me of late, that just came by what the natural might call an "intuitive leap". Like the picture of the Moon's phases as a picture of the Covenant. Some might say this exegetical, that I am "reading into" the scriptures my own opinions. I would ask if they have looked at Paul's writings? Start tracing his Tanakh references, and a lot of times you are left going "how does he get that out of that?" At least with your mind, with your Spirit you get it. Like poetry. Or the book of Job. I think until you are in the same spirit as Job, you will not get that book. When you are, suddenly it is like Job was written to you. The Spirit ministers the truth. If it were no so, there would be no _Peh_ , no Spirit, only letter.

What does this mean in the practical? Well, as we study, sometimes we make things over complicated. Just as it does not take a degree to trust יהוה, neither does it take a degree to seek Him for understanding. In fact, understanding is promised to the sincere. Have you tried asking?

"יהוה Yeshua, help me to understand this. There is no temple, where do I take my tithes?"

"יהוה Yeshua, I am married and my brother died without children, how do I raise up children to His name?"

"יהוה Yeshua, it is the year of Jubilee how do I return possessions when you never divided our land?"

If you do not understand, pray for understanding. And do not be afraid of what you do not understand. There are parts of Torah, I do not understand. I want to keep them, but I do not know how. I do not need to be afraid. The flesh is afraid, but with my Spirit I know God is my Father, and He is teaching me for my good, not so that He can find fault.

As I seek Him, understanding that He is not judging me as I wait on Him, this also answers the large issue of the Temple and ritual. In the previous draft, which did not include Hebrews, I semi-addressed this issue. Semi, because it is large issue that I do not have full understanding on. A lot of the Torah ties commands to the ceremonies of the Temple. It is an argument that some have made as a reason not to try to keep Torah, but that is the flesh's argument. Yeshua taught to keep it though He knew the temple would be destroyed. How often is the example of the Widow's Mite taught as a reason to make offerings in a church? But Yeshua was teaching about giving _in the Temple_. By the Spirit we are sometimes able to find _substitutional_ ways of keeping the commandments. Even in the Tanakh this was true (surprise, God's standard was the same). Consider the story of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 30. Hezekiah invites all Israel to keep the Passover after many years of not having done so. But many of those who showed up were unclean. Hezekiah knew it was outwardly against the commandment, but he prayed that יהוה would receive the work as righteousness from everyone that had prepared their _heart_ even though they were unclean. And יהוה listened to the prayer.

Now I am not saying that we can go willy-nilly substituting one thing for another. No one teaches that the offerings that were given then could now be substituted for a round of golf. They must be lead by the Spirit, but the point is we are able to approach (inclining our heart) to what the Torah says while in some ways being unable to fulfill without a Temple.

I know that touches on a controversy that lies even within my own mind—though it has faded since studying Hebrews. Concern with the Temple implies sacrifices, blood sacrifices. After Hebrews and the recalling of the prophecies of the continuing service of the Levitical Priests, it seems _backwards_ to believe that even blood sacrifices would be a problem. Yet, it has been deeply ingrained in us, contempt, even a spiritual allergic reaction to the idea of blood sacrifice since Yeshua has come.

However, we have seen—to our shock—the born-again, Apostle Paul (with the understanding of Romans and Galatians behind him) did sacrifice, as it would have been included in "purifying himself" from a vow in the Temple. What do you think he was doing _in there_? Playing ping-pong? Hopefully, after Hebrews and the prophecies, it is not too surprising when you recall the covenant with Aaron's sons was _everlasting_.

Further, we are told in the prophets that sacrifice will happen again even when resurrected David (or Messiah) is ruling from Jerusalem, Ezekiel 45:17. Even with the mounting consensus of scripture, it does seem hard to swallow. How could there be blood sacrifices after Yeshua's work has been finished? It is an utter abomination to even think about, _we have heard said_. Though I have to wonder again, why Yeshua never once spoke against the Temple or its offerings? Was Yeshua insulted by what Paul did? Was Yeshua insulted by the thousands of Jews during His time who sacrificed daily? Isn't it strange that the "final" sacrifice never did a sermon on the subject? Do you suppose, Yeshua went through His entire sinless life and never participated as part of the community's Yom Kippur sacrifices? If not even making a sin offering for Himself—though sinless? Do we suppose He never had cause to offer peace offerings which also involved slain animals?

If we think about Yeshua's life in context, it becomes easier to imagine sacrifice not being a problem. It is harder for me at the end of this study to imagine that God altered something that important without a clear prophetic message, than it is to believe that He would be offended by keeping it. Especially with the Levitical Priesthood still in place. The offensiveness seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what sacrifice is.

Remember, two things from earlier. First, sacrifice is about restitution. Well, how does killing an animal make restitution with God? Consider the bread of the presence (twelve loaves that were always before יהוה. Consider the grain offerings and the drink offerings. Consider that the priests ate many of the offerings that were made. Notice that the blood is always poured out and never burned. Why is it that God chose a form of sacrifice that was food? Only clean, healthy animals, with the blood removed? Why not money? Why not buying Him a servant? Why not doing push-ups for Him? This leads to the second thing to remember.

Recall that the word for covenant comes from the word select, _barah_. This except for in one case in scripture is rendered "eat". Remember the picture of there being no agreement with a guest until you cut off that drumstick and hand it to them? Is it possible that we are missing the obvious pattern? God is not glorying over some priest prancing around splashing blood like an _avante garde_ artist, perhaps the priest is just preparing a meal that symbolically you share with God? When did יהוה last confirm the birth of the promised seed? Over a _meal_ with Abraham. The tithes were to be _eaten_ and _enjoyed_ before יהוה. In Isaiah 25:6-8, where the swallowing of death is predicted, יהוה promises a splendid _feast_. Right before Yeshua performs the act swallowing death, He shares a _meal_ with His disciples. Even offering a _selected_ portion to the one who would betray Him?

I put to you that rather parades of blood, God's sacrifices were patterned around the idea of sharing a meal with God. In which case what makes this different than the Thanksgiving Day meal? Or any meal for that matter? What part of this conflicts with our Messianic sensibilities? Are we offended by meat taken with thanksgiving and symbolic sharing with God? Is that more offensive than the animals that are killed across America by the hundreds of thousands, by machines without any sense of moral component to the act? Animals (clean and unclean, healthy and unhealthy) that become meat for people many of whom will not offer a moment's thought to God for it, and much of which will be wasted? While people across the globe starve. Really, the one that might be done in the Temple by a worshiper would be offensive?

It cannot even be the blood that offends us since to eat meat, blood must be shed. So all we are really saying is that we don't want to be reminded of the cost. In a sense, rather than show we are too civilized for the sight of blood, we are saying we are too godly to acknowledge the cost of our survival. We simply don't want to see it. And perhaps, that is why the blood is there? With a meal taken at home, God did not require anything but that the blood be poured out. Don't eat the blood because it is life. But with the offerings, the blood (the life) is displayed and elevated to a place of attention. In other words, when things are "ordinary" between you and God, the meal is simply enjoyed without "too much" ritual. But when you are extra aware of good things from God; you make a peace offering. When you realize you have sinned, and though forgiven, want to make amends, you make a sin offering. In that case the blood is displayed, not because God likes the blood (which was shed just as much in your regular meal), but as a picture and reminder to you of what it costs for that peace or the forgiveness. It took a life.

So you see, the idea of blood sacrifice should be no trouble for anyone but a vegetarian. But if, as it has been with me, the idea of blood sacrifices is still difficult to contemplate, our faith does not need to be threatened. Justification and atonement remain by faith whether someone is sacrificing or _not_ sacrificing. A sacrifice by original David does not take away from Messiah's work, neither would one offered by a resurrected David. If it was not abominable back then empowered by the same Messiah's blood, why now? I do not believe God would see it that way.

And for those on the other end of the spectrum who might think to do sacrifice themselves, I would point out that an Earthly animal sacrifice done outside the Temple by a non-Levitical priest would in no way be keeping the commandment. A far closer substitute is the High Priest Yeshua.

##  Conclusion

Quite a journey, hasn't it been? I don't know where you are on the road of your faith—'the Way' as Luke called it. I know for me there was a time when a consistent faith was unimaginable. "Jewish things" seemed alien—the Jewish traditions still are. I believed the mainstream interpretations as authoritative. Now looking back, while I still regard with respect many theologians and the arguments for some doctrinal perspectives, as those mainstream perspectives concern Torah, I cannot understand how I ever thought that way.

I hope that this book has left you much the same. Not by my eloquence, but because you can see in the Word of God that a pro-Torah perspective is the default perspective. The only perspective that can bring all the scriptures together. And I hope that I have not failed to demonstrate that this whole discussion is not one against the Congregation (church) nor especially Messiah or the Spirit, but one that is for the Instruction of God. It was not my goal to dismantle an idea—though a stronghold of the enemy, by all means—my goal as God revealed in the process of writing was to put Torah back in the place of magnificence that יהוה gave it and יהוה Yeshua demonstrated.

Furthermore, I hope this work has demonstrated that this is not some trivial stylistic doctrine like how many hymns is the appropriate number before breaking for prayer or sermon. Rather it is a foundational understanding to restore this manual God gave to His people as a gift. This is the way to live life as יהוה intended, according to the _Peh_ , always according to _His_ meanings. It is holy and just and good, as Paul taught. This is not a burden; far from it, it is the way of freedom. The way that by the Holy Spirit, as we seek יהוה to sanctify us, that we are taught to love our neighbor, to forgive, to provide for the poor, to love our wives, train our sons and daughters. It is the language of righteousness by which all the writings of the New Testament make sense and the doctrines of men are dispelled.

יהוה gave the Torah because He loves us, if there are few things to remember from this discussion let that be one. More than that, He likes us. I struggle for the words and the structure of this book to use the words, but God likes us. It has been through really delving into the Torah as God means it, that I have been lead to a true relationship. That sounds backwards, but it is true. I knew of God, but He was far away. The way He has drawn me was through His Torah, more than any other part of the Bible. And it is hard to say because we are so geared to think with our heads instead of with our _ways_. We think we must grasp things with our minds, but I believe more and more . . . There is a part of many Jewish blessings that says, "Blessed are thou, יהוה our God, who sanctifies us by your commandments and commands us to . . . " It is the act of doing, the cooperative effort, that begins as an inclination in the heart which is the way God changes us. Action is inseparable from seeking. We cannot seek God with only our intellect. And that is what God shows me again and again. These commandments and customs are far from empty. These trivial commandments are integral, each one stretches our obedience and shapes our character so that we begin to see things more His way and less ours. I just wish I had the Words to say you will never be closer to God then when you are _keeping_ His Torah.

Remember also that it was Yeshua, who is יהוה, which gave us the Torah, lived Torah, died sinlessly according to Torah, and whose example we are told to follow.

Lastly, as you begin to follow Torah, remember that neither יהוה, nor the Apostles ever taught that you would get it all right. Or that you could learn it in a day. It is יהוה's work that sanctifies you. The Torah is the tool He has given to you to cooperatively work it out. It will take time—יהוה's time—to learn to walk, because it is about changing you. Not about changing your behavior, or giving you authority over other people to correct them. It is about you meditating on the Torah as David did, finding delight in it, and, as that happens, change happens and your understanding is enlightened. You wake up day-by-day, Sabbath-to-Sabbath, Feast-to-Feast, commandment-to-commandment, finding yourself not "more spiritual" but closer to יהוה. You find His life more often in your mortal flesh. His nature becomes your nature, and to the world you become someone different that draws glory not to yourself but to יהוה.

Be patient, there is no need to rush. If you don't understand how to do something because God has not shown you how to do it in a way according to His _Peh_ , then don't be afraid to not take action. But keep affirming that though you do not understand how to do something, it is still the _true_ way. God is long suffering, and He chastens those whom He loves; the point of chastening is not to destroy but to make better.

If you seek, יהוה will change you.

##  Selected Bibliography

1. Jewish Encyclopedia. _Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature_. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision

2. Moses Maimonides. _Guide for the Perplexed: CHAPTER XLIX_ , trans. Friedländer tr. [1904]. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp185.htm

3. Eusebius Pamphilus, _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol 1._ , ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

4. Randy Alcorn. _Heaven_. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; Hardcover edition (October 1, 2004)

###

## About J.S. Clark

J.S. Clark lives in southern Ohio with his wife, Alisa, and their one living child (with one more in Yeshua's keeping) and their assorted, cats, dogs, and other living paraphernalia. Most of the time, he's operating a small oasis of _good,_ quick food (not fast food) called the Happy Turtle, located in West Union Ohio, which he and Alisa started. Outside of that, together they're learning self-sufficiency on a small, potential farm, and endeavoring to live as disciples of Yeshua the Messiah. With the time God gives him outside, and in the cracks of that daily work, he writes.

_Backwards_ is his first non-fiction work. One he hopes will be a blessing to God's children. He also has an assortment of speculative fictional works. At the time of this publishing, he's deep in a sci-fi epic novel _Evangeline_ , an ongoing series of short Middle Grade stories, tentatively titled _Aiyela the Space Gypsy_ , and . . . a sequel to _New Arbor Day_ tentatively titled _God of Heroes._

For more info, or to contact him, visit J.S. Clark's blog at http://pen-of-jsclark.com for the latest on these and other projects and happenings, and follow him on Twitter @jsclark5768!

