The Obedience of Faith

The Obedience of Faith

“…We have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles…” (Rom.1:5)

The book of Romans is considered by many to be, next to the gospels themselves, the most important book of the New Testament. It contains, supposedly, the famous “Romans Road of Salvation”, which can be found easily in the text of the epistle, particularly if one completely ignores many of the things that are actually written in it.

Wait. What??

That’s right. A funny thing happens when we read the text of the Bible for what it really says, instead of simply what we are told it says. There seems to be a whole lot of “works” being suggested in the “works-free” gospel of Paul. Yes. Could our understanding of righteousness and redemption need tweaking? Let’s walk through the first five verses of Romans and see what we might find:

“Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus…” (Rom.1:1)

It should be noted that, as a “bond-servant” of Christ, Paul certainly will not be teaching or presenting “another gospel” than what has been entrusted to him. Particularly not one which stands at odds with those in authority over him. I’m speaking of course of Christ Himself, but also of the Jerusalem Council and specifically James, the head of that Council, who has often been assumed to be at odds with Paul’s message of “free grace” in the famous exhortation we find in chapter 2 of the epistle credited to him. Ditto for the Sermon on the Mount, in which the Lord states that “whoever keeps and teaches (the commandments) shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt.5:19)

So much for the idea of a “law-free gospel”. So much for “Haven’t you read Galatians?”. No. Such ignorance of the sacred texts must be dispensed with now. Because if Paul were to teach contrary to Yeshua and of the Jerusalem Council (a Council that Paul was not on, and was subservient to), he would be a heretic and we would not have the ability to read his letters, since they would have been destroyed. Continue reading

The Twinkling of an Eye

The Twinkling of an Eye

“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”(1 Cor.15:52)

This verse, as well as a few others, is used to explain the Rapture Theory. You’ve seen the Left Behind movies, right? One moment, it’s business as usual, and the next, driver-less cars are crashing into each other, clothing is found on the floor (minus the wearer) phone calls are dropped, etc. Sounds like science fiction.

That’s because, largely, it is.

Is the Tim LaHaye dramatization of pre-millenial rapture a fair representation of what Paul is referencing here? What type of change could represent this idea in Jewish thought of the Second Temple period?  Continue reading

A Sword In the Assembly

A Sword In the Assembly

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

The Lord goes on in this passage to quote Micah chapter 7, which is a foreboding prophecy of apostasy and of sublime faith, as he describes his ministry (“setting a man against his father…”).  This passage in the gospels, in Christian tradition, has always been analyzed independent of Jewish Oral Law, and is commonly interpreted as the Lord describing the division created by those who either accept or reject the gospel.

While this interpretation has merit on its own, what if the Lord is actually alluding to a famous incident in his nation’s recent history when he made this statement? How, then, would this change the way we envision how his audience would have heard him?

Consider this passage from the Talmud:

“Shammai said to him: If you provoke me and insist that there is no difference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contradict this, I will decree impurity on the the gathering of olives as well. They related that since the dispute was so intense, they stuck a sword in the study hall, and they said: One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave, so that all of the Sages will be assembled to determine the halakha. That day Hillel was bowed and was sitting before Shammai like one of the students. The Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the decree, and the people did not accept it from them.” (Talmud, Shabbat 17a, Koren Steinsaltz edition)

This incident detailed in the Gemara would have taken place in the generation just preceding Christ’s ministry, and would have been a fresh memory among the diverse and politically tense population that the Lord ministered to.

The Steinsaltz commentary goes on to explain, concerning this passage in the Gemara, that while it is not entirely clear what exactly happened in the study hall that day, it was by all accounts a harsh dispute which nearly reached bloodshed, and that the sword was placed in the dirt of the floor of the study hall, signifying the gravity of the occasion. Much debate in the Mishna and Gemara continues concerning the eighteen decrees issued that day.

For our purposes, the conflict between Hillel and Shammai, and their respective houses of study, should be of keen interest. The Master’s teachings almost invariably took on the flavor and aggadic style of Beit Hillel. And while Beit Shammai certainly was highly regarded, and is quoted in the Talmud extensively, in most cases the halakha is ruled in favor of Beit Hillel, whenever the two great sages are at odds.

Among the eighteen decrees that were issued in this famous incident recorded in the Talmud, many were centered on the issue of ritual purity, a topic over which the Master found himself at odds with his critics quite frequently.

It is entirely possible, if not probable, that when the Lord makes his statement “I came to bring a sword”, that this would have immediately brought his audience to focus in on this famous dispute in their recent national history. The question then becomes, “On which side does this teacher fall?”, and further, “What is the occasion that his teachings would be equated with this incident?”

Rabbinic Judaism was still in development at the time of Christ. The Pharisees were at odds with the Sadducees. After the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, the Sadducean sect died off, but the Pharisees flourished and their doctrine became the central worldview of Rabbinic Judaism. Interestingly, the doctrine of the Pharisees is both endorsed and taught by Yeshua (in spite of the halakhic disputes in the narrative of the scriptures which would lead a person unaware of the hidden subtlety to think otherwise), and further promoted by his followers, the apostles, in their subsequent writings.

One of the core distinctions of the Sadducees was their unwillingness to acknowledge the Oral Law. They lived only by the written Torah of Moses, and did not acknowledge the validity of the traditions. The Pharisees, on the other hand, did. It is from the Pharisees that many doctrines so core to Christian faith are preserved, such as the believe in angels and demons, the belief in the afterlife, and perhaps most importantly, in the resurrection of the dead. All of these doctrines developed and were preserved through the Oral Law, not the written Torah. But within the Pharisees were varying interpretations of that law, and the Lord was most aligned with Beit Hillel.

Replacement Theology presumes that Christ abolishes the Jewish system of religion and replaces it with a new, more lenient faith system based on grace and not law. This is a result of reading the gospels as though they were written in a vacuum, divorced from the historical and religious context from which they sprung. But when we remember that the Master was an observant religious Jew, and that he taught from within this context, his teachings take on a richer, and more realistic tone.

The Lord taught from within Judaism, and from within the framework of the Oral Law, not from outside of it. A careful evaluation of his teachings in light of Jewish Law reveals this clearly. This should give pause to us as we evaluate any teachings which suggest that rabbinic authority has no bearing upon a Christian. We should be suspicious of any systematic theology that teaches that Christ has superseded the Law or the traditions of Judaism.

The dispute the Lord references in this passage in Matthew may not, in fact, be a warning that his appearance on the scene represents the end of Judaism and the beginning of Christianity. It may simply be his giving notice that he had the authority to rule on halakha, and that, just like the incident we find above in the Gemara, his presence was going to cast a sword in the study hall. Perhaps he is calling the sages of his day to attention, and telling them that “no one leaves until they decide the matter”.

In this context, he is not soliciting violence against his native faith, but insisting that all parties stay present while he resolves the dispute. The sword is a sword of peace, after all.



Fields White For Harvest

Fields White For Harvest

Covering Exodus 23:10-19, in this audio teaching (the audio of a live webinar), we make a parallel with the shemitah year and the gospel. This is from our weekly Thursday night webinar Bible study.

If interested in learning more about how you can participate in these sessions, click here:


This Day

This Day

In the third month of the going out of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt, in this day they have come into the wilderness of Sinai..                                     – Exodus 19:1, Young’s Literal Translation

Most Bible translations render this passage in the more sensible phrasing, “on that day”, as in past tense, i.e., this is what happened at that time. It is a logical transliteration of the awkwardness of the Hebrew. However, as in so many other places in the Bible, the translators bring us an adulterated version, stripped of it’s deeper midrashic meaning.

We see from Young’s literal translation that the Hebrew says, “in this day they have come”, which seems to change the tense of the narrative. The great Jewish scholar, Rashi, paid careful attention to the Hebrew here and connects it to the Passover event 50 days earlier:

This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you.(Ex.12:2)

The inference, which is explicit in Rashi’s understanding, is that the Passover event marks the beginning of months. This could also be understood as the beginning of new life. Fifty days later, Israel reaches the place of Mattan Torah, or the giving of the Torah.

The direct parallel of this event can be found in Acts chapter 2, which records the giving of the spirit, which lighted upon all who were gathered in Solomon’s Colonnade, where they were all in one accord in one place (Acts 2:1). The descent of the spirit and the manifestation of the utterance of foreign languages by non-native speakers, also parallels the Midrash’s rendering of “thunderings” which the people heard from the mountain of Sinai as the “voices of God”(Ex.19:19).

The important picture in our key passage, according to traditional Jewish understanding, is that the people arrived at Sinai in a place of unified repentance.

Clear out of your mind, for now, the tragic events of the golden calf which will soon follow. Here, this day, the nation is repentant and ready to receive the word of the LORD. This month, the first of months, and this day, the day in which new life is given. Continue reading