Too Long in the Sun

[L-Chaim]

It has been taught for hundreds of years that the apostles established, or at least gave credence to a change from the "Jewish" Sabbath to a "Gentile day of worship", Sunday or the first day of the week "in honor/celebration of the Resurrection."

Touching claims that this is the doing of the apostles or any other human of any religion or denomination we declare that no man has authority to alter what is spoken by the Creator. His eternal decrees are exactly that: eternal. Normally when cornered over this claim, the response quickly becomes the secondary position, which for their sakes should have been first: they gave consent or credence to such a deviation from "thus saith the LORD."

The New Testament is not silent about 7th day Sabbath observance at all. Let it be noted that the reason is this point was not up for debate, nor was it an issue with any of the converts...at least according to the Record. In fact, the Record proves that this was not an issue. Therefore, seeing that there was no need to ...write unto you as touching the seventh day of the LORD..., we see no such commentary. Teachers have declared that the Fourth Commandment is the only one not "repeated in the New Testament, showing that Christians are not obligated to it." And they go on to note several events that took place on the first day of the week as though these events establish a mutation of the immutable.

Overwhelmingly, in discussion of the Law and the Sabbath we are told we need to read the Book of Galatians. Beyond their being rather insulting, they assume that when we read the epistle, we will come to the same conclusion they have been taught. And should we differ, then we are at best "private interpretation." (Of course, it's not mainstream.) Worse, we are following a "cult" or some such. Never are we given the same validity they claim for themselves which is that their understanding is directly the result of their own studies.

We have read the Book of Galatians since childhood. I personally memorized Galatians 2:16 in 1970, along with several other "not by works" verses in the epistle and from the letters to the Romans, Titus, Ephesians, etc. We know all about justification being freely given and that apart from any doing of the Law... at least from the standpoint that no one understands that Messiah, grace, faith and justification are foremost in Torah. Indeed, how can the Lawgiver be indicted with condemning sin to hundreds of years of His chosen people without explaining grace? The failure is to note that the "Old Testament" term for grace is "mercy."

What about Paul, the Apostles, the "Law"/Torah and the Gentiles?

We look now to the Epistle to the Ecclesia of Galatia:

It is not news to any theologian that the Book of Galatians' main focus is about the route to justification. What is or is not required, particularly is circumcision. Some state that the term circumcision included more than the physical act, that it includes all that was associated with alignment with Israel. Nonetheless, as Paul unabashedly declares, it is foolish to think that any act of man can render or complete justification. Forgiveness is never earned (Romans 4). It is a gift (Ephesians 2). If someone is offended, sinned against, the only forgiveness possible must be given. Any "forgiveness" that is earned ceases to be forgiveness and becomes restitution or wages to be "paid" to soothe the one offended. Any thinking person should understand this point with no trouble. Further, Paul writes to Ephesus that prior to being "made alive" a man is dead in trespasses and sins. Dead men can do no good works. Something that has no life cannot generate life in itself. Such would be absurd. So, let readers we in no way aver justification comes by anything more than grace through faith. Period.

What all those who require that we read the Book of Galatians miss is this very point: the epistle is about circumcision for justification.

IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT A MAN OR WOMAN DOES AFTER BEING JUSTIFIED!

Proof?

Galatians 2:

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:


Since we all claim to be biblical literalists, let's be just that. Let us be "Berean" about this passage.

"Then fourteen years after..." Paul, the so-called missionary/apostle to the nations/Gentiles has been "in the field" at least fourteen years. Paul was called on his way to Damascus and at some point after began his missionary journeys. According to this testimony to the Galatians, he had been at least fourteen years pursuing his calling.

Fourteen years into his work, he took Barnabas and Titus with him to Jerusalem for a private conversation about this matter of circumcision being entangled with justification. He went to the men who preach (communicate) the same gospel he preached to the Gentiles. Summarizing the visit, he stated that Greek Titus was not "compelled to be circumcised." Certain men, perhaps of good intention, were convinced that belief in Yeshua was not enough, that converts must be circumcised as well to attain justification. The common title for these people is "judaizer" or "judaizers." This word is not often clearly, or should we say fully, comprehended. The point was that they believed converts must be circumcised to become Jews, i.e. grafted into Israel. It is not likely they meant evil. We read Paul's comment that they pressed this matter "that they may bring us into bondage" was not so much a slam against the character of these people, but a conclusion of what they contended. He simply noted that the product of the belief that circumcision completes the justification process leaves or "brings" a man into bondage. Bondage is and has always been pursuit of the LORD's favor via works. Granted, sin brings disfavor. That is a major reason Torah was given.

Romans 5:

20. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

Romans 14

23. ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin...

Adding works, even water baptism, if it is mingled with faith for the purpose of attaining justification leaves a man in bondage, for no effort of man can attain what is given.

The first man to be circumcised in obedience to Torah was Abraham. Torah? Yes. See Genesis 26:5. Paul says of Abraham, his flesh, his faith and this topic:

Romans 4:

1. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Clear enough. Abraham was first of faith, justified. Because of his faith and being deemed just, he was required to be circumcised. Justification first and complete - deeds follow. You remember "...created unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:10.

Paul, Barnabas and Titus went to Jerusalem to confer with their fellow apostles over this matter of circumcision being mingled with faith, particularly for the Gentiles to attain justification.

When did the trio make this journey? At least fourteen years into Paul's ministry. Is there record of this visit? Absolutely. And ironically, it is one of the very passages those who oppose the Sabbath and Torah turn to for their support: the so-called "Jerusalem Council" of Acts 15.

Acts 15:

1. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

There it is. Here we read of Paul's journey to Jerusalem "fourteen years after." Certain men had come in and were teaching "ye must be circumcised" as was delivered by Moses (Exodus 12). I seriously doubt Paul needed any help on this matter. Barnabas and Paul "had no small dissension and disputation with them." It is apparent that the word of Paul and Barnabas was not enough to satisfy these men. So, for the sake of peace/shalom, the decision was made to gain support from the testimony of men who preach the same gospel. Therefore the trip to Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem (verse 2), they sought the apostles and elders "about this question." They did not go to find out about what should be done after justification. They went to find out about "this question." Should circumcision be a part of the requirement for justification? "This question." This is the question on the table in Jerusalem. When men teach us that the Jerusalem council frees Gentiles from observing Sabbath and the Law, they are either blind to or are deliberately misrepresenting the narrative. The wording is easy enough to understand.

Once there (vs 4), the men gave testimony of the Gentiles who embraced the Messiah and were grafted into Israel. Much rejoicing was heard. See that? The men recounted how many Gentiles, via the same gospel, were born again and these apostles rejoice with them.

After a time of rejoicing and fellowship, the question is brought up: We've got some fellows trying to bind our converts with this matter of circumcision being required for justification. So we have come here for backup, support on this matter. Tell us, so that we may report to them your agreement with us. Not a problem.

Peter recounted how that neither the fathers were justified by circumcision (faith first, then obedience), nor were we circumcised in order to gain justification and we are not going to burden these men who preach to the Gentiles to do such a thing. Nor will we party to them teaching Gentiles this doctrine which renders bondage. Justification is free, always has been and always will be, is Peter's conclusion.

Remember: Paul, called by Yeshua years after the Resurrection and the so-taught deletion of the Law for Gentiles, has now been making converts for at least fourteen years. If anyone should know about any change of day or any idea that converts should ignore "Moses," it would have been Paul. After all: "the apostle to the Gentiles."

So, fourteen years into his ministry Paul is supported with Peter's observation. Then they all were silent (vs. 12). This comment in the narrative is huge. Any of you who have been around enough have heard the saying: "two Jews, three opinions." Of course, men of all religions endlessly debate doctrines and issues. But it seems that this trait is stronger and more well known among Jews than any other. Visit any yeshiva. Read the Talmud, the Mishnah. These are rife with opposing views on most all topics. (We mean NO/NONE offense to Jews with this comment.) The fact that Peter's observation was enough to silence a group of Jewish scholars is the proverbial "icing on the cake." Case closed. End of the matter. Done.

Paul and Barnabas continued to recount miracles done among the Gentiles. This was a great time for these men. The work of Messiah was fulfilling the Torah so much so that "all nations" were being blessed through Abraham. What a thing!

Next, James, the one who penned "faith without works is dead being alone," gave some serious caution. It is this caution that is maligned and misunderstood. Let us, for the sake of analogy, bring James' advice to the modern day.

Suppose we were to go to "deep, dark Africa" and preach the gospel among people who were into spiritism, sorcery, worship of gods of nature, et.al. And suppose we present to them the requirements of the LORD and their misalignment with these requirements. And we reveal to them that Messiah, the Anointed One, has given Himself a substitute for our infractions/sins/violations/misalignment. The Holy Spirit convicts the hearts of these pagan people and they embrace the gospel. Can anyone of us with sound mind expect that inside of two, three, four, five weeks they shake off all of their life-long habits, rituals and beliefs? Can we? That would be wishful thinking. Frankly, it could take months and even years for some to come into the fullness of biblical behavior and subjection to the Ruach haKodesh/Holy Spirit. This is simple to see and understand. So then, what would we do? We would see that they initially prove their rejection of pagan gods and their desire to follow the Holy Scriptures. We would expect them to immediately cease and desist with banging tom-toms to rouse spirits, eating flesh of some kind to purify themselves of this or that. We would expect them to show basic moral adjustments. By doing these few things, which would be by human reasoning, very difficult, they would show their move from pagan practices and gods to Truth. This would be proof to themselves, to their families, others around them and to us, their missionaries, as well as to the LORD Himself. These "good works" (want the real terminology?), this obedience to teachings of Torah, would convince us all that they mean business. Then what would we do? What would be the next thing? We would spend a few years making disciples of them. We would teach them how to walk in the ways of the LORD. We would teach them how to teach their own, start their own congregations and be self-supporting and self-replicating. This is the LORD's way. This is what Paul, Barnabas and Titus were doing before going up to Jerusalem... for at least fourteen years.

So James, with the same common sense that we would have, cautioned these men to make certain that the converts from paganism turn from a few horrid practices to prove to all their conversion. He did not suggest they do these things to be converted, rather to prove they had been converted. Okay, not a problem. Paul knew this already as we can see by reading his works. James' advice was to go easy on the converts. As Paul stated in Ephesians, converts "WERE" Gentiles.

Ever wonder why Christians insist on remaining Gentiles? Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles" tells Gentiles who are converted they were (past tense) Gentiles. Now that conversion has been granted to them, they are grafted into Israel. No longer are they Gentiles. Well, this is another topic for another page.

What is the advice of Scripture? Isaiah 28:

10. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

James lists four things to expect of new converts. NEWS FLASH: Two of the four are laws of kashruit (dietary law). Hmmm. And one of these two is nowhere mentioned in Torah or the rest of Scripture! You will not find any prohibition against "things strangled." This is "Oral Law," "Oral Torah," the stuff that Christianity says "Jesus did away with." Here is the problem with this point. Mingled in with oral Torah (tradition) were all manner of interpretations and additions by the recently formed orders of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. James was noting that the Gentile converts even avoid things strangled. Also included was/is "fornication." Most are taught that adultery is promiscuity among married people and fornication is promiscuity among non-married people. Fornication in those days, and even today in many places, is the act of promiscuity with authorized, religious leaders and representatives for the purpose of appeasing a god or gods. There were among the pagans, temple priests and "virgins." Promiscuity with these people was done in religious context as obedience to pagan dictates. The requirement James sought was that new converts no longer go to these pagan representatives and commit this "sin against the body," 1 Corinthians 6:

18: ...but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Simple, isn't it. Hey fellows, all this is marvelous in our eyes and we rejoice greatly. But let us not overwhelm these new converts. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. If we overload them, we should likely lose them. Proof of this observation of James' caution? Read the very next verse. Acts 15:

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

A. Moses. i.e. Torah, the Law.

B. Every city.

C. Taught. Torah teaching in every city.

D. Synagogues. Not churches, under steeples and behind stained glass or ornate columns. Synagogues: Jewish, of all things. Where ELSE would one learn "Moses?"

E. Sabbath. Former gentiles learning Torah "every Sabbath" in the synagogues.

When is this? When? When are Gentile converts who prove their conversion with four initial prohibitions learning Torah every Sabbath in synagogues? When?

"Fourteen years after." Paul has been raising Gentile converts and establishing congregations of believers in Messiah Yeshua for at least fourteen years. Isn't Paul the one churchmen argue supports a day change in Acts 20... which is, by the way, after Acts 15.

Nowhere do we find that any apostle taught any convert to avoid the Torah, "Moses." What we see is the opposite. The very council in Jerusalem, used to oppose Torah for Gentiles is one of the strongest supports for all believers everywhere to be "subject to the Law of God" (Romans 8:7).

Romans 8:

5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Does anyone still want to deny the authority of Torah for believers? Simply because there is no levitical system, temple in Jerusalem and Yeshua nailed - the ordinances that were against us to His cross - does not release any believer from subjection to Torah / the Law. Foolishness compresses all of Torah into the phrase "ordinances that were against us." What was/is against us is "Do the crime; do the time." Laws of penalty. Does anyone really believe Yeshua did away with Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me? Thou shalt not commit adultery, steal, lie?

Oh, "these nine are repeated in the New Testament." No, they are not. There is no command in the New Testament to not take the Name of the LORD (YHVH) in vain. Look it up. Read ALL the writers who make the claim and look up their proof texts. The best they have is the opening of the so-called "Lord's Prayer." "...hallowed be thy Name." Stating that the Name of the LORD is holy is not in any way the same thing as not taking the Name in vanity. Let's be literalists now, "Berean." The Sabbath silence argument fails several times in the New Testament, one of which we have discussed in this article.

Any claim that Paul taught believers to violate Torah is false. James even stated:

Acts 15:

20. ...that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Write / Letters / Epistles.

Let us all be persuaded that the LORD does not back out on his promises, blessings, teachings and commandments. He does NOT make one set of rules for one period of time and another set of rules for another. If anything, new things were revealed to us through the centuries. As for the tabernacle, temple and levitical system, this was simply a model of what is eternal. Remember? We did those things long enough for it to "sink in" and know the severity of sin and magnitude of sacrifice and bounty of grace.



Four Words:
Then fourteen years after...
_________________
"It's not bondage; it's bonded."

[Watchman]

Wonderful analysis. I thought to vote 'L-Chaim is a nut case', but this would not have changed the truth of your words.

Here are another 4 words for a 'high five' after your 'slam dunk':

"according to the commandment" Luke 23:56

God inspired Luke to write those words approximately thirty years after the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the 'New Testement Church'. The "rest" these women took on the Sabbath day was "according to the commandment"—a statement that would not be possible had the commandment been abolished.
_________________
Titus Chaper 2

[L-Chaim]

Watchman,

Most of us around here are literate enough to know there is not one shred of evidence that Messiah or any of His followers mutated the imutatable Torah, especially that which is in stone and resting beneath the Blood of Atonement. However, knowing Dispyism as well as I know my own biography, any "thinking" (tongue in cheek) dispy would counter that even though Luke wrote after the fact, the event took place prior to the resurrection. The dispy, depending on which one you ask, would aver that the resurrection is the point of mutation of what we know cannot mutate, rendering your observation of no value.

Please, no accolades from Dispies. Some of you may not have been able to explain this one, considering today's level of biblical prowess.

Sincerely, your friendly citizen of THE Kingdom with a King, constitution and all applicable ordinances regarding personal and national application for the sons of Avraham, homeborn or stranger (graftee [by faith] to you Greeky types), of said constitution, better known as Torah (Law to you Greeky types).

L'Chaim
_________________
"It's not bondage; it's bonded."