Hanukkah

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I will be willing to attempt to discuss these issues w/you. But please understand, I am not the student that you are nor am I as well read as you are....but I do KNOW what I know....so far.....but God is not finished w/me and I am a work in progress.

Hey there Susan,

I think we are COMPLETE EQUALS when it comes to discussing Scripture. Sure, we have different backgrounds and different levels of knowledge, but that only means that we can teach each other things that we otherwise wouldn't know. Our differences can be the source of much benefit for all parties concerned. The only potential problems I see are 1) If I ignored your valid points by hiding behind my supposed "knowledge" or 2) if you ignored my valid points by hiding behind your supposed "lack of knowledge."

Let us join together in the spirit of peace to search out the Word of God. It really can be a joy!

I get a bit uncomfortable and perhaps this is in a lack of my understanding.....but this New Covenant/Old Covenant. As I see it, the so called New Covenant is the same......it is the fulfillment of the OC.

This is an important issue. God did not say that the New Covenant was as "fulfillment" of the Old. On the contrary, God contrasted the two covenants, pointing out their difference, namely, that He would write His Law on our hearts rather than external tablets of stone as at Mt. Sinia:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The scriptures of the OT which really means 'covenant" is full of scriptures/prophecies of the coming Messiah, Jesus. I don't think there should be any separation between the two "testaments".....which are really covenants. God's planned never changed.....providing a Messiah was always HIS plan. The Bible should not be a divided piece of work......it is ONE continuational work of the HOLY WORD of God. Gen to Rev.....non-stop......no division.

I agree completely that the Bible is a unified book, but Scripture itself makes a distinction between the Old and the New Covenants, so I must do the same. Jesus said:

KJV Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Here "testament" means "covenant" of course.

And I agree completely that "God's plan" never changed, but I suspect then that we may differ about what His plan is. I say that the "Jewish stage" was just that - a stage in His unfolding plan of Redemption to bring forth the Christian Gospel of the Jewish Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. That is God's plan. It has never changed. It never will change. When God called forth Abraham He promised that he would be the father of many nations. The word nations is "goyim" which is usually translated as "Gentiles." God's plan was never restricted to the ethnic nation of the fleshly children of Abraham. God was always planning to bless the world through Jesus Christ. He called forth Abraham, and the Jews, to accomplish this purpose. They are not an "end in themselves."

Let me remind you that the entire Book...the Bible is ALL Hebrew...written by Hebrews, inspired of God to the Hebrews.....they ALL were Hebrews, Jesus is Hebrew, He came to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

This point is very dubious. I have researched the original Scriptures at great depth and have found strong evidence that all but three NT books were originally composed in Greek. The three possible exceptions are Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the NT as a whole was originally composed in Hebrew? If so, please present it. If not, then why believe it?

Fleshy Israel???? Not sure what you mean here......fleshy as in sinful flesh???? Well, we certainly cannot leave out the "fleshy" Gentiles, now can we.

By "fleshly Israel" I mean the unbelieving children of Abraham that Paul talks about in Romans 9:

Romans 9:6-9 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The Bible explicitly declares that that being a fleshly child of Abraham means nothing in itself. Only the children of promise are counted as "seed." God never made any promises to fleshly Israel.

God bless you sister. I really look forward to discussing these important issues. Now I gotta get back to my mundane work ...

Richard

[sula]

I just completed listening to Parts A & B of this podcast teaching on the benefits/reasons/explanations there of in observing and understanding the scriptures concerning this study. I simply cannot find in anyway or matter to expand or improve on what is taught here. It appears that one will have to cut/paste or go to the website to listen to this podcast. It is very well worth it.
Shalom Chaverim!

I trust that everyone is having a blessed light-filled, Yeshua-centric Chanukkah.

*Listen to “Part A” of the audio version of this commentary from this link: http://www.graftedi n.com/audioParas hah/Chanukkah_ a.mp3

*Listen to “Part B” of the audio version of this commentary from this link: http://www.graftedi n.com/audioParas hah/Chanukkah_ b.mp3

*Download the written .pdf version from this link: http://www.graftedi n.com/images/ Parashot/ 10ChaggimChanukk ah.pdf

*Our web site can be accessed here: http://www.graftedi n.com/

“Reisheet chokhmah yirat ADONAI!”

(The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD!)

--

Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy

Torah Teacher

http://www.graftedi n.com/

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just completed listening to Parts A & B of this podcast teaching on the benefits/reasons/explanations there of in observing and understanding the scriptures concerning this study. I simply cannot find in anyway or matter to expand or improve on what is taught here. It appears that one will have to cut/paste or go to the website to listen to this podcast. It is very well worth it.
Shalom Chaverim!

Thanks for the links Susan. I downloaded the mp3 and the pdf files. The info looks interesting.

Are you planning to answer my last post to you? I hope so, I think a dialog would be wonderful.

Richard

[sula]

My answer to your post Richard is in that podcast link I sent you. I simply cannot say it any better...far from it......and actually there is nothing else to say/add. To discuss this further would only prove to be redundant. I did say I was open to further discussion however, that was prior to my hearing the podcast today.........I might mention here that the podcast includes even more info than the written text.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My answer to your post Richard is in that podcast link I sent you. I simply cannot say it any better...far from it......and actually there is nothing else to say/add. To discuss this further would only prove to be redundant. I did say I was open to further discussion however, that was prior to my hearing the podcast today.........I might mention here that the podcast includes even more info than the written text.

That's unfortunate for three reasons.

1) The podcast is not in a form I can directly reference on this forum without typing out a transcript.

2) I have no idea which parts of the podcast you thought were relevent to the issue we are discussing.

3) The last time you said that an article from a website "said everything perfectly" actually said almost nothing at all relevent to the topic we were discussing.

So if I were to speak frankly, I would have to tell you that your response seems like a cop-out to me. It would be very simple for you to respond directly to my direct questions if you thought you had good answers. For example, you asserted that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. I asked for evidence. You have given none. You said that the New Covenant was a continuation of the old, I quoted Scritpure that showed it was not, and you have not responded to that point. You said you didn't understand what I meant by "fleshly Israel" and I explained that, but you did not respond.

So basically, you have not responded to anything I wrote in that detailed response I gave to you.

Richard

[sula]

No, Richard, I am not using this as a cop out. This states everything I believe in and agree with. ALL of it. EVERY BIT of it......Hanukkah, Torah, Law vs Grace, NT, Grace, Salvation all part of one package..no separation of one from the other.

Yes, the other pod cast I gave you was in error...it was not the one I thought it was and I apologize for that...

Also, I did not say specifically state that the whole Bible was written in Hebrew....I said it was written TO the Hebrews, BY Hebrews w/the exception of Luke perhaps...I am aware that most of the Nt was written in Greek as that was the language of the time. The OT as I understand it was mostly written in Aramic as that was mostly what was spoken. You misquoted me there.....or took a bit of liberty.....as you have done on other posts......I did not say anything the first time and I should have immediately this time and will most certainly next time. I've noticed how you will change one or two words.......quite subtly. I let it go......but I won't any more....I did notice......it did not slip my notice. But anyway, if you do not want to listen or comment on the podcast, that is your choice......but Ariel Ben Lymen speaks the truth on this subject. That my story and I'm sticking to it. I wish more people would listen to it.......it does make alot of sense. I grew up as a christian in the baptist church and I heard all this NT.....no law.....once saved always saved , pre-trib rapture nonsense....sorry don't mean to step on anyone's toes here but nothing about the "rest of the story" was ever mentioned. W/o thd OT, we woul have no NT. If one wants to understand the NT, they need to study in the OT. The NT means so much more to me now that I am learning of the the OT. Listen to the podcast.......w/an open heart that there just might be something here. I asked God for knowledge.....I asked for the golden delicious apples.....why would God give me a barrel of rotten apples. That goes directly against everything HE stands for. There IS something here, Richard.......step out of you box and give it a shot. You might be surprised.

[sula]

VIRTUAL CHANUKAH
POSTED 08 DECEMBER, 2007

Teaching on 1 Maccabees 4:26-61

commentary by J.K. McKee


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of the foreigners who escaped went and reported to Lysias all that had happened. When he heard it, he was perplexed and discouraged, for things had not happened to Israel as he had intended, nor had they turned out as the king had commanded him. But the next year he mustered sixty thousand picked infantrymen and five thousand cavalry to subdue them. They came into Idumea and encamped at Bethzur, and Judas met them with ten thousand men (1 Maccabees 4:26-29).

1 Maccabees 4:26-61 is a selection of text that many people in the Messianic community will be reading, as it has been published with a variety of Torah reading schedules by some Messianic ministries. In our examination of the history surrounding Chanukah, I think it is prudent for us to examine a selection from this reading, to get a good idea about what was taking place during this time. All too often, we hear 'about the Maccabees' or 'about the Greeks,' but we often do not delve into what was actually going on.

Because of the uncertain authorship and dating of 1 Maccabees, it is not accepted as canonical Scripture by Jews and Protestants. George A. F. Knight speculates that 'Our author must have been living after the close of the period of which he writes (134 B.C.)…On the other hand, the author shows no effect of the advent in Palestine of the Romans, which occurred in 63 B.C. We suppose therefore that he wrote before that time. It is more than likely, then, that he finished his book soon after 104.'[1] The text as we have it today 'has come down to us in Greek. But that is certainly a translation from the original Hebrew text.'[2] The version of 1 Maccabees that we have was compiled with other Apocryphal texts as an adjunct for the Greek Septuagint, which is used in English translations today.

Today’s teaching comes from a section that begins after Judas Maccabeus defeats Gorgias at Emmaus, and right before he meets Lysias in battle. It demonstrates that at first the Seleucids thought they could easily defeat Judas and his guerilla army, with 'five thousand infantry and a thousand picked cavalry' (1 Maccabees 4:1), but are defeated by an inferior force of three thousand. I would recommend that you read 1 Maccabees 4:1-25 to get an important backdrop of what we will be examining today, as we see the Maccabees gaining momentum are greatly feared by their enemies.



26 Those of the foreigners who escaped went and reported to Lysias all that had happened.

Prior to Lysias’ engagement with Judas Maccabeus, 'foreigners' are said to have escaped and make their way to him. Previously, we are told, 'The Gentiles were crushed and fled into the plain…and all those in the rear fell by the sword. They pursued them to Gazara, and to the plains of Idumea, and to Azotus and Jamnia; and three thousand of them fell (1 Maccabees 4:14-15). The Greek text calls these men allophulos (allofuloß), meaning, 'of another tribe, foreign' (LS).[3] Knight indicates that these were mercenaries who were 'concerned only to earn their wages as soldiers.'[4] This might account for some of the reason why, as originally of a force of 5,000, they run from Judas Maccabeus and his army. But at the same time, it was Judas who appeals to his army, 'Remember how our fathers were saved at the Red Sea, when Pharaoh with his forces pursued them' (1 Maccabees 4:9). Judas further rallies his troops with the battle cry, 'And now let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will favor us and remember his covenant with our fathers and crush this army before us today. Then all the Gentiles will know that there is one who redeems and saves Israel' (1 Maccabees 4:10-11).

Being defeated by those rallied from images of the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt, these mercenaries wearily come to the feet of Lysias. Lysias was an extremely important man in the empire of Antichous Epiphanes, having been 'appointed regent of Syria and guardian of his son while he attacked Persia…Lysias sent Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias with a large army against Judas, but the Jews soundly defeated them near Emmaus' (ISBE).[5]

If you were in Lysias’ position, and you had just sent these men to defeat a rag-tag Jewish militia, and here the army comes fleeing for their lives—even if they were just mercenaries—what would you be thinking? You would be furious. You would feel that your subordinates could not take care of a simple task as crushing the Jewish uprising. Later, you might be thinking, that a bigger problem needs to be resolved. Lysias himself would now have to take care of it, as he was probably shaking his head in anger and disgust as to what had just transpired.



27 When he heard it, he was perplexed and discouraged, for things had not happened to Israel as he had intended, nor had they turned out as the king had commanded him.

V. 27 describes the attitude that Lysias had as he was hearing the report from the battlefield. The REB says 'He was stunned at the news, bitterly disappointed.' This is because Lysias’ plans of a simple military defeat of the Jewish guerillas had not worked. Now his army was defeated, and the revolt was gaining momentum. Lysias’ well-laid plans had not been executed as he had ordered. But it is not as though Lysias is just furious about his subordinates’ failure; he is also very concerned about himself, being the regent of Syria. Notice that the text tells us, 'the result was quite the opposite to what the king had ordered' (NJB). If you were in the position of either Lysias’ subordinates, or Lysias himself, you would be very concerned about your own life. In ancient times, most generals and military leaders who failed in combat were either expected to commit suicide in the face of defeat, or often faced execution.

Of course, we all know the real reason why Lysias is given this negative report: the God of Israel won out over His enemies. Knight makes the important observation, 'The Jews were fired by loyalty, faith, and trust both in God’s covenant and in the rightness of their cause.'[6] We need to understand that for the author of 1 Maccabees, the Jewish people are 'Israel.' This is difficult for many non-Jewish Believers in the Two-House Messianic community to understand, because while seeing themselves as a part of Israel, they often relegate the Jewish people only to the place of 'Judah.' However, at this time in Biblical history, 'Judah' was all that remained of recognizable Israel. The Apostle Paul himself refers to the Jewish people as 'Israel' in his teaching on the olive tree in Romans chs. 9-11. He says, 'they were entrusted with the oracles of God' (Romans 3:2).

During Chanukah, when we recall these events, we get to consider what the 'oracles of God' actually are. Many immediately conclude that these oracles are the Torah, and this would be a correct answer. But more and more studies into the Jewish background of the New Testament are revealing that when 'the Law' (Grk. nomos, nomoß) is spoken of by the Apostolic writers, it is in a much looser sense than just the Biblical books of Genesis-Deuteronomy. It does, in fact, include some of the Oral Torah. Are oracles from God found in the Oral Torah? A good litmus test to see whether or not someone in the independent Messianic community believes so, or does not believe so, is whether or not they are celebrating Chanukah. Let us not forget that if Judah, the recognizable remnant of Israel, had been destroyed, there would have been not only no operating Temple or Torah, but no Messiah to come into the world to save us from our sins.



28 But the next year he mustered sixty thousand picked infantrymen and five thousand cavalry to subdue them. 29 They came into Idumea and encamped at Bethzur, and Judas met them with ten thousand men.

V. 28 describes how seriously Lysias was concerned about the forces of Judas Maccabeus. In spite of how it is variably translated, the fact that Lysias takes 'the Jewish threat' seriously is obvious. He assembles 'sixty thousand picked infantrymen and five thousand cavalry.' His does this with 'the intention of finishing off the Jews' (NJB). Perhaps we can assume that Lysias knew the power of the Jewish religion, and had heard of the stories of the God of Israel. In spite of having superior numbers, as a polytheist Lysias would have believed that Israel’s God could intervene on their behalf. He would have believed his gods to be superior, but even so he wants the rebellion crushed in a speedy manner before God can act.

Knight explains that these events probably occurred in the Fall of 164 B.C., and that 'Lysias must have marched from Antioch S down the coast to Philistia, turned E, then N. He was now in the land where David had led his freebooters and where Saul and Jonathan had fought against the Philistines.'[7] Whereas the previous force only encountered a Jewish army of 3,000, here Lysias encounters an army of 10,000. Still outnumbered more than 6 to 1, there must have been an incredible amount of zeal in the Maccabees. Here they were fighting in the midst of their homeland, where their forefathers David and Jonathan, and even Saul, had fought off some of Israel’s most ruthless enemies. David S. Williams comments, 'Although Judas’s forces have grown, the Jews are still greatly outnumbered. Their subsequent victory against the larger forces assembled by Lysias carries forward the theme that strength comes from God, not from numbers.'[8]

How many of us have the courage and spiritual zeal inside of us to continue like the Maccabees? When we consider the role the enemy plays in battle, we can see that he is desperately concerned because he knows that he is fighting against God and cannot win. This was the case of Lysias as he must assume control of his forces and put down the Jewish rebellion himself. Of course, we know that he does not succeed.

Sometime in the future, Satan’s servant, known by various terms in Scripture such as the beast, the man of lawlessness, or simply the antichrist, is going to come to power. He is not going to succeed according to his master’s wishes. He is going to fail. In the end, at the end of the Millennium, Satan is going to be released to deceive the world. Satan is going to get his chance and will be in direct control of the events, not through an intermediary like the antimessiah. But he too, in the end, will fail:

'When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them' (Revelation 20:7-9).

Bibliography
Anderson, Hugh. 'Books of Maccabees,' in ABD, 4:439-454.
Brownlee, W.H. 'Books of Maccabees,' in IDB, 3:201-215.
Knight, George A. F. 'The First Book of the Maccabees,' in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, pp 588-599.
McEleney, Neil J. 'The First Book of the Maccabees,' in The Oxford Study Bible, pp 1197-1232.
Williams, David S. '1 Maccabees,' in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1551-1593.

NOTES

[1] George A.F. Knight, 'The First Book of the Maccabees,' in Charles M. Laymon, ed., The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 588.

[2] Ibid.

[3] H.G. Lidell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 38.

[4] Knight, in Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 593.

[5] J.J. Scott, Jr., 'Lysias,' in in G.W. Bromiley, ed. et. al., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 3:192.

[6] Knight, in Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 593.

[7] Knight, in Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 593.

[8] David S. Williams, '1 Maccabees,' in Walter J. Harrelson, ed., et. al. New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003),1563.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, Richard, I am not using this as a cop out. This states everything I believe in and agree with. ALL of it. EVERY BIT of it......Hanukkah, Torah, Law vs Grace, NT, Grace, Salvation all part of one package..no separation of one from the other.

Ok - I'll listen to them with an open heart and mind and let you know how they (and the Spirit of God) speaks to me!

Yes, the other pod cast I gave you was in error...it was not the one I thought it was and I apologize for that...

Ah, I understand. Things like that happen all the time. Thanks for letting me know. Apologies accepted, of course!

Also, I did not say specifically state that the whole Bible was written in Hebrew....I said it was written TO the Hebrews, BY Hebrews w/the exception of Luke perhaps...I am aware that most of the Nt was written in Greek as that was the language of the time.

Oh! I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearling that up. But actually I would say it was written BY Hebrews but not only TO them, since Paul directly addressed the Gentiles too. "For I speak to you Gentiles .." (Rom 11:13).

The OT as I understand it was mostly written in Aramic as that was mostly what was spoken.

Actually, very little is written in Aramaic (in Daniel and Ezra), the rest is all Hebrew.

You misquoted me there.....or took a bit of liberty.....as you have done on other posts......I did not say anything the first time and I should have immediately this time and will most certainly next time. I've noticed how you will change one or two words.......quite subtly. I let it go......but I won't any more....I did notice......it did not slip my notice.

You just made an accusation with out any evidence. That is contrary to Scripture. I have no idea what you are talking about and so am unable to respond. And you also added an insinuation that I did it on purpose with subtley like the serpent in the garden. That seems to indicate a bitter spirit. Please accept my appologies if I have offended you in some way. That was never my intent. I have never "subtly" changed "one or two words."

So now you have obligated yourself to proving your accusation with evidence (remember, all our words are recorded here) or publicly retracting it.

But anyway, if you do not want to listen or comment on the podcast, that is your choice......but Ariel Ben Lymen speaks the truth on this subject.

We'll see if he speaks the truth. I'm going to write a full review.

I wish more people would listen to it.......it does make alot of sense. I grew up as a christian in the baptist church and I heard all this NT.....no law.....once saved always saved , pre-trib rapture nonsense....sorry don't mean to step on anyone's toes here but nothing about the "rest of the story" was ever mentioned.

Stepping on toes? No way! Your singing in my choir when it comes to the absurdity of modern pop Christian eschatology like the pre-trib rapture that I can not find anywhere in the Bible.

And now you know why I am so upset with modern pop Christianity. After years of going to a Baptist church, it seems you still do not understand the Biblical relation between Law and Grace! Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying its your fault. Your pastors never taught you the truth. Probably because they were too busy trying warning you about the antihrist who was goiung to come back in 1981.

W/o thd OT, we woul have no NT. If one wants to understand the NT, they need to study in the OT.

Absolutley correct. But without the NT, the OT is DEAD.

The NT means so much more to me now that I am learning of the the OT.

I study the OT as the WORD OF GOD. I consider it every bit as significant as the NT. I see an absolutely UNIFIED BIBLE - one book made up of 66 books. All inspired by the True God.

Listen to the podcast.......w/an open heart that there just might be something here. I asked God for knowledge.....I asked for the golden delicious apples.....why would God give me a barrel of rotten apples. That goes directly against everything HE stands for. There IS something here, Richard.......step out of you box and give it a shot. You might be surprised.

God would never give you rotten apples. But He also would not give me rotten apples. Your mistake has nothing to do with what God has given you. Your mistake is that you teach people to "keep Torah" when God Almighty has made that impossible by declaring that if you do you will lose Christ.


We can find the solution to this issue quite simply and directly. Tell me what Paul meant when he wrote this:

Galatians 5:1-6 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 ¶ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Can a man keep Torah and reject circumcision?
Can a man keep the NT and not reject circumcision?

Answer those questions and you will have answered the question if Christians should "keep Torah."

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, Richard, I am not using this as a cop out. This states everything I believe in and agree with. ALL of it. EVERY BIT of it......Hanukkah, Torah, Law vs Grace, NT, Grace, Salvation all part of one package..no separation of one from the other.

Hi Susan,

I read the PDF file that you linked. It began very good ... he presented an orthodox view of the Divinity of Jesus and everything seemed quite biblical until he tried to deal with the question of circumcision and obeying Torah. Here is the section where he erred:

The Righteousness of God
By Torah Teacher Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy

In his letter to Rome, Sha'ul wrote in 3:28 that God considers a person righteous on the grounds of trusting, which has nothing to do with the Torah (or as in KJV “deeds of the Law”). On the surface this seems problematic for my own teachings that consider Torah observance to be of great significance. Yet, the problem here is really more a matter of hermeneutics than of theology. What Sha’ul is really talking about when he employs the Greek phrase “ergon nomos”, translated here as “works of Law” is in actuality a technical phrase that the Judaisms of Sha’ul’s day employed to speak of the halakhah, that is, the proper way in which a Jew is to walk out Torah. Indeed, the prevailing view of the sages of the 1st Century held to the common belief that Isra'el and Isra'el alone shared a place in the world to come. Thus, if a non-Jew wished to enter into HaShem’s blessings and promises, such a person had to convert to Judaism first. To be sure, this is one of the primary arguments delineated in the letter to the Galatians.

But for Sha’ul no such ‘man-made” conversion policy existed in Scripture!
By contrast, Sha'ul taught most assuredly that Gentiles were grafted into Isra'el the same way that Avraham was counted as righteous by God in B’resheet (Genesis) chapter 15: faith in the promised Word of the LORD. Thus, the phrase “works of Law” has a Hebrew counterpart: ma’asei haTorah. What meaneth ma’asei haTorah? The Dead Sea Scrolls used this phrase as well, and since the discovery of those manuscripts we have now come to know that it refers to “some of the precepts of the Torah”, as adjudicated by the halakhah and by the particular community wielding the most influence. To be sure, the halakhah that teaches Gentile inclusion only by way of conversion (read most often as “circumcision” in Galatians) was naturally at odds with the True Gospel of Gentile inclusion by faith in Yeshua plus nothing! If we understand that quite often Sha'ul’s use of the term circumcision in Galatians is actually shorthand for “the man-made ritual that seeks to turn Gentiles into Jews” then the letter begins to make more sense Hebraically and contextually.

With this knowledge at hand we are now prepared to better interpret Sha'ul’s pasuk, “a person is considered righteous by God on the grounds of trusting which has nothing to do with the Torah…” as really saying, “a person is considered righteous by God on the grounds of trusting which has nothing to do with the conversion policy that seeks to make Gentiles into Jews first”!

There is the error, plain for all to see - underlined, bold, red. There is absolutley NOTHING in the Bible that suggests Paul was talking about any "man-made ritual." On the contrary, it is perfectly clear that Paul was talking about a primary command of Judaism - the Law of Circumcision given by Almighty God in the first book of the Torah to Abraham, the great father of our faith! This can not be disputed because he developed the same argument in Romans where he explicitly talked about Abraham receiving the sign of circumcision from Almighty God:

Romans 4:9-12 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Paul NEVER talked about circumcision as a mere "‘man-made' conversion policy." Paul was talking about the circumcision commandment that father Abraham received straight from the mouth of Almighty God:

Genesis 17:1-14 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an >>>everlasting covenant<<<, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

These are the fundamental Scriptures that the self-exalting "Torah Teacher Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy" (he calls himself "HaNaviy" which means "The Prophet!" ) had to twist and pervert to "prove" his false doctrine of Torah Observance. He perverted the New Testament and twisted Paul's words by saying that he was talking about some meaningless human ritual, when in fact he was talking about one of the most significant covenants that Almighty God made with our father Abraham.

The "Prophet" Ariel ben-Lyman perverts Scripture to lead people back into the bondage of the Law.

Richard

[White]

Hi Everybody, but especially Richard.

Circumcise then the foreskin of your heart and stiffen your neck no more -
Deuteronomy 10:16

I always found this verse fascinating - It ties circumcision together with obedience in a very illuminating way.

Richard's questions:
Can a man keep Torah and reject circumcision?
No
Can a man keep the NT and not reject circumcision?
Yes (see below)

This article is about male circumcision. For Judaism's circumcision ritual, see Brit milah.

Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.[1] The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and c&#230;dere (meaning "to cut").

Circumcision predates recorded human history, with pictures in stone-age cave drawings and Ancient Egyptian tombs, though some pictures may be open to interpretation.[2][3][4] Male circumcision is a religious commandment in Judaism as well as in Islam,[5][6] and customary in some Oriental Orthodox and other Christian churches in Africa.[7]

Circumcision is most common in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia.

After all are not most Americans circumcised at birth, unwittingly following a ritual from the Old Testament, so I would say "yes" to your second question, RIchard. For those who don't know, Circumcision became the purifying tool the LORD used to get HIS PEOPLE into the Promised Land, therefore, the verse : Circumcise then the forskin of your heart
and stiffen your neck no more. Shalom !

Shalom & Happy Hanukkah - 7th night
Monique