|
|
Post by alon on Apr 14, 2016 21:52:54 GMT -8
[Edit: I see my bracketed introductory paragraph is missing. I remember I was having trouble as for some reason the entire thing was coming up italicized (just like this), and I think the intro got lost in the fix. Regardless, I again want to thank Rabbi Stanley of Synagogue Beit Aveinu for allowing me to post this teaching. The amount of work he must have put into it is phenomenal. Also two cautions: one is this is from my notes, so there will inevitably be a few things missed out, added or possibly changed. But the vast majority is just as he presented it. The other thing is that, by necessity whole sections have been removed due to similar ideas, while valid and important truths, have in the past caused some newer in Messianism to lose faith. This all can be overwhelming when too much is presented at once, and we need to be mindful that others are where we ourselves were at not long ago. So I apologize for that, however I do believe it is necessary based on past experience.] Galations ch 2Galatians 2:1-5 (CJB) Then after fourteen years I again went up to Yerushalayim, this time with Bar-Nabba; and I took with me Titus. I went up in obedience to a revelation, and I explained to them the Good News as I proclaim it among the Gentiles — but privately, to the acknowledged leaders. I did this out of concern that my current or previous work might have been in vain. But they didn’t force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo b’rit-milah. Indeed, the question came up only because some men who pretended to be brothers had been sneaked in — they came in surreptitiously to spy out the freedom we have in the Messiah Yeshua, so that they might enslave us. Not even for a minute did we give in to them, so that the truth of the Good News might be preserved for you.This is out of the Complete Jewish Bible translation. It’s more understandable here than the other translations, but it still needs a lot of work. We read before where the commentators and other Bible teachers said that Paul didn’t need the approval or direction of the Disciples because he had been given a direct revelation from Yeshua Himself. You might remember we read from Mathew Henry, one of the best known commentators: Did Mathew Henry not read the very next chapter? We just read how Paul had gone up to Jerusalem to the acknowledged leaders and he says “out of concern that my current or previous work might have been in vain.” Obviously Paul did care what the leaders in Jerusalem thought and submitted himself to the leadership there. I don’t see one word about his “ independence” here or in any chapter. Rabbi Shaul was no fool. He didn’t care about his independence from the other Apostles! That’s absurd. He only cared about doing what G-d wanted him to do. Yet I can’t tell you how many Pastors I’ve heard who have made Paul out as their guy independent of the Disciples in Jerusalem. That teaching has anti-Semitic roots. We’re talking about our faith and it should upset you anytime the truth is not being told, especially if it’s slanted against the faith that Yeshua Himself established. Vs. 3 “But they didn’t force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo b’rit-milah.” B’rit milah means circumcision. It is commonly taught even by those of the Messianic-lite persuasion that Gentiles do not have to get circumcised and this verse 3 here in Galatians 2 is one of their key verses to back that up. They point out that Titus wasn’t forced to get circumcised so that means that Gentiles don’t have to do it. The Church contends that we’re free from the Law and Messianic-lite contends that only Jewish believers need to keep the Law and Gentile believers only have to keep the “laws” that Acts 15 tells us about where it says: Acts 15:20 (CJB) Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.Messianics who take that approach that there are two sets of rules are called Two  or Two House believers. They say there’s one set of rules for Messianic Jews and one for believing Gentiles. That passage in Acts that gives a list for the Gentiles is not a maximum list of requirements, it’s a list of minimum requirements; if a Gentile can’t even keep these basic instructions, we can’t even fellowship with them. These are sometimes called the “ Noachide Laws” by those ignorant of Judaism. They are wrong, as there are seven Noahide laws, not just four:
So, both the Church and Messianic-lite couple that passage in Acts with this one in Galatians saying “see, Titus didn’t have to get circumcised!” I agree, Titus didn’t have to get circumcised. In fact, Titus didn’t have to do anything, and neither do you. Sure, you’ll pay for it by living in eternal torment but you don’t have to do anything. It drives me crazy when I hear "believers" think in terms of have to or don’t have to. That is the epitome of immaturity. “We don’t have to keep G-d’s Laws,” what are you, three? And it doesn’t say Titus never got circumcised. Later he might have; that can take time to come to terms with for some men.
Nothing can be forced. The Adversary can’t force you to sin and G-d won’t force you to obey His Laws. It all has to be committed by will; good or evil. No, they didn’t force Titus to get circumcised. Look at what that passage says; “But they didn’t force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo b’rit-milah.” Let’s look at what it says in the KJV:
Galatians 2:3 (KJV) But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Compelled is a fine way to say it. We are NOT to compel or force any of the mitzvoth. I don’t compel anyone to wear tzit tzits either, or to keep the Sabbath or keep kosher or any other commandments. And neither should you. Encourage? Yes! Explain the consequences? Yes! Compel or force? No! It wouldn’t do them any good even if you did compel them. It has to come from the heart.
The weightier sins have civil law that punishes for them. In the last days, keeping Sabbath and the Feasts will be forced by G-d. In the last days if the Gentile nations don’t keep the feasts, especially the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), they will suffer for it:
Zechariah 14:16-19 (ESV) Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain; there shall be the plague with which the Lord afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.
What if they don’t keep the other feasts? We’re not told exactly, but if that’s what happens to them for not keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, I don’t want to know what’ll happen if they don’t keep Passover or Yom Kippur. Oy Halachky!
So that will change in the last days. “I thought G-d never changes”. G-d doesn’t change but some of the things He does are covenantal (If you do such and such I will do such and such), and some of the things he does are time oriented, like the above. (At such and such time, I will do this or that.)
“Well maybe the Law as a whole was time oriented?” Nope, when G-d says forever, he means forever. He means what He says and He said His Laws are eternal. So it absolutely falls in line with One Theology that Titus was not compelled or forced to keep the Laws. I have no doubt that he did eventually get circumcised. One may ask, “Well how does that work? He wasn’t circumcised then so why would he get circumcised later?” Because everyone is at a different level in their walk with G-d. One may be wearing tzit tzits but still working on the commandment of posting a Mezuzah. Another may have no problem at all with posting a Mezuzah but is struggling with wearing Tzit tzits. That’s why you’ll hear me say that’s between you and G-d and you’ll hear me say things like I’m not the Tzit tzit Czar or Kosher Control or the New Moon Mayor or that I’m not a Kippa Cop or the Shabbat Sheriff or the Handwashing Warden or that I’m from the Amidah Authority. It’s between you and G-d.
I’m not going to compel you and no one else should compel you either. None of us can compel another brother or sister concerning the Mitzvoth. All that being said, the fact that we shouldn’t compel anyone to keep the mitzvoth isn’t an excuse for people to not keep G-d’s Laws. Just because you’re not policed doesn’t mean that you should abandon .
Galatians 2:4 (ESV) Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
So some people came in pretending to be believers and tried to compel them to keep the Laws the way they saw fit; outside of the arena of the leadership. Paul calls them spies who were trying to enslave the true Believers.
You may think that doesn’t happen here, but it does and has. We are teaching the truth here and I guarantee the Adversary will throw everything he’s got at us, but as long we continue to teach the truth, G-d will be with us. We can’t be afraid of confrontation either and we can’t become weak from confrontation because of these people who are sent by the Adversary. I’m not trying to get too spiritual on you, but if the enemy sees that you’ll buckle under confrontation, that’s exactly the way he’ll attack you. If you fight when you’re supposed to fight he’ll see he’s not making any headway and he’ll back off.
So how did Rabbi Shaul handle it?
Galatians 2:5 (ESV) to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
And that’s how you should handle it; don’t give into them for a minute! And that’s exactly how the leadership here at Beit Aveinu handles those kinds of situations, we show them the door. And if banned members ever try to contact you, the best thing you can do is say “I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in lashon hara” and don’t give them an ear. You may never get a call like that, but if you ever do, you need to know how to handle it. And it does happen. We’ve had some whackos that have come through here. I have never heard of a Church that didn’t, at one time or another, have some nut bar come through it. Being a Messianic Synagogue where we teach the truth, the enemy sends more than usual. But you can’t let that spook you. If anything it should make you stand taller and become better prepared.
Galatians 2:6 (ESV) And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
As far as how these words are to be understood, I do agree with commentators like Clark, Barnes and Gills that the translators were using unnecessary harsh language here. It’d be better translated as “And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching I was doing fine. By the way what these leaders were before they were the pillars of the synagogue- in other words before they were Saved- makes no difference to me as G-d is no respecter of persons.” RSV (Rabbi Stanley Version) (but it’s in line with many commentaries and some other translations).
Ok, why on earth would he say that? Why would Paul say it makes no difference to me what they were before? And in Greek there it does say “before.” The reason the commentators and church leadership don’t address it is because they don’t know why Paul said it. I think he had a good reason to mention what they were before they were pillars of the Church, before they were saved. And he says why in the following verses:
Galatians 2:7-9 (ESV) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
So again, the question is why did he say that "it doesn’t make any difference what they were before?” Those next verses make it clear that he’s talking about these three pillars- Peter, James and John.
Galatians 2:7-8 (ESV) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised [Jews outside the covenant], just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised [Jews within the covenant] (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised [Jews within the covenant] worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles [nations, including Jews outside the covenant],
But let’s look at something else here, it says “as Peter had been entrusted with the Good News to the saved Jews who are keeping covenant” (RSV Rabbi Stanley Version) So why did Peter have to be entrusted with the Good News to Saved Jews? I thought the good news was that Jesus came and died for our sins and rose from the dead. Because that’s not the Good News!
Mark 1:9-14 (ESV) Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
Thing is, Jesus didn’t tell any of those people he was going to die. He didn’t tell them He was going to raise from the dead either. His own disciples didn’t know He was going to die- even when he told them just before it happened. They were also all surprised when he rose from the dead. He hadn’t told all the people in Galilee anything about his death and resurrection. So how did he go throughout the Galilee preaching the good news? Obviously the good news wasn’t about his death and resurrection!
The good news was Yeshua’s Mishna. Mishna is a Hebrew word that means repetition. It is a collection of teachings or sayings, and a recording either verbal or written of any particular Rabbi’s acts and deeds. Also called the besorah of Yeshua:
Brown-Driver-Briggs, בְּשׂרָה noun feminine tidings, 2 Samuel 4:10 3; בְּשׂוֺרָה 2, Samuel 18:25,27 —
1 good tidings 1 Kings 7:9.
2 tidings, news 2 Samuel 18:20,25; with טובה 2 Samuel 18:27.
3 reward for good tidings 2 Samuel 4:10; 2 Samuel 18:22.
Strong's- reward for tidings; Or (shortened) bsorah {bes-o-raw'}; feminine from basar; glad tidings; by implication, reward for good news -- reward for tidings.
By the time of the first century, Rabbis had varied on their interpretations on how to understand certain topics in . You had Rabbis who were far left and some who were far right. Keeping in mind that far left today would be considered far right by our Western society. So there were differences between the Rabbis of the far right and the far left and people were saying there were two sets of instructions; a conservative set and a liberal set and they weren’t sure which way to go. [ed note: actually, there were many sects spanning the spectrum] They needed an authority, a prophet or better yet the Messiah himself to come and tell them which way was correct. When they saw that Yeshua was exactly that, it was like water to a dying man. He showed them which parts were right from which Rabbis.
The people had been waiting for someone with great authority for many years and they could tell Yeshua had that Authority. Authority can also mean ordination; you have to take it in context, that’s not the context here though. Here they were saying he had a greater authority than even those ordained.
Matthew 7:29 (CJB) for he was not instructing them like their -teachers but as one who had authority himself.
The Church often uses this as something disparaging, saying the teachers of the Law didn’t have authority. That’s not what it’s saying at all; it’s saying they didn’t have that kind of authority. There’s not one person on this planet that has the same authority as G-d. Some do have more authority than others though. I’m not embarrassed to say I have more authority than anyone in this town. The other Pastors in Wenatchee don’t keep . In fact most of you here have more authority then the Pastors of this valley just due to the fact that you’re keeping !
Rav Shammai and Rav Hillel had more authority than I could ever dream of having. That’s where humility comes into play. Humility is the understanding of who you are with G-d and who you are without G-d. It doesn’t mean you go around and talk about how depraved you are. That’s how the Quakers and Mennonites understand it. They go on about how they are just worms. “Oh we’re nothing but worms, just like Jesus was.” I used to attend a Mennonite congregation up in Tonasket. And every Sunday you’d hear them tell about how they’re just worms.
They’d quote Psalms 22 which is a prophecy concerning Yeshua; it’s Yeshua himself speaking in the TNK about the future and about Him being beaten:
Psalm 22:6 (ESV) But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
So according to them, Jesus is our perfect example (which He is) but they figure that since Jesus said He was a worm, we should also be humble and see ourselves as worms. There’s a half-truth here. Yes, in the scheme of things we are like a blip compared to G-d. But does that mean we’re supposed to go around thinking and or saying that we are worms? Let’s first look at the word worm. In Hebrew “toelaht” can mean worm, but it can also mean crimson depending on the context. It’s like that in English too; it’s called a “homonym” - a word that has the same pronunciation and spelling as another word, but a different meaning.
In English there’s also heteronyms: Excuse; "Please excuse me while I think of an excuse." Polish; "Tell the Polish cleaners to polish the floor." There’s tons of them. That’s just the way it is in languages, and here we have another example of that with this Hebrew word toelat.
Psalm 22:6 (KJV) But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
Exodus 26:31 (KJV) And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:
So how can it mean something so different? One is worm and the other is crimson. We don’t always know why a word means what it means. But in this case we do. There is a worm in Israel that gives a colored dye and the color of that dye is crimson. Back to this verse in Psalms 22:6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone. It should read “But I am crimson and not a man, scorned by everyone.” Why should it say “crimson?” Because it’s describing Yeshua’s beating before the Cross; it’s talking about how bloody he was. He was beaten so badly, he didn’t even look like a man. He had practically been flayed alive. Anytime I see these movies where Pilate looks like some kind of sympathetic ear because he said he washes his hands of Yeshua; it makes me sick. Pilate knew what was going to happen to Yeshua and he still let it happen. Pilate was no innocent bystander. He was a participant in outright torture and murder and no matter what he said, he was responsible. He’s sitting on the adversary’s knee to this day. One may say, “ But if he had stopped it, Jesus wouldn’t have died for our sins.” That doesn’t make Pilate any less guilty. If you were to point a finger concerning Yeshua’s death, it wouldn’t be Judas or the Sadducees, it’d be Pilate. He was the one in authority. He was the one who decided His fate. Why does the Gentile Church go easy on Pilate? Because, he was a Gentile! So this whole thing where people say we’re nothing but worms is because they didn’t understand the simple Hebrew word “ toelat.” |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 14, 2016 22:02:14 GMT -8
Let’s go back to the original point: How can Peter have taken the gospel to the saved Jews? The good news was Yeshua’s Mishna; it was his teachings and a record of His acts and deeds. His Disciples had memorized Yeshua’s teachings and acts. Later on they wrote down His Mishna and that’s why it’s called the Gospels, the Good News. Too many pastors don’t understand the tri-partite G-d head and they don’t know what the Gospel is. If anything, they should know those two things.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Sh'ma Yisra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
Not three persons with one mind or standing there agreeing with each other; but One! And the Gospel, the Good News, was NOT that Yeshua had to die, but that once again God would make a way. It's really not that difficult unless you are perverting scripture to support your own (or ha'satan's) views.
Peter wasn’t taking the message of Salvation to the Saved Jews; he was taking the teachings of Yeshua to saved Jews to help them grow. Spiritual growth is often overlooked by the Church. They think the end game is salvation, but that’s the just the beginning! If you even attempt to ask many pastors about something deeper then salvation they’ll tell you things like “Well we’re free from the Judaic Law and whenever the Bible says Israel it means the Church and we can understand that by being more spiritual.”
Galatians 2:9 (ESV) and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles [nations] and they to the circumcised [saved Jews].
Galatians 2:10 (ESV) Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Remember the poor. Does that mean any poor person? Most Christians seem to think so. But it doesn’t mean that. There are some poor people who are poor because they’re spending all their money on drugs or alcohol or gambling. Those aren’t poor people, those are foolish people. We’re supposed to help the poor not the foolish or the lazy. There aren’t many truely poor people in America. Even with the high unemployment rate, I’ll tell you many of those who were laid off from high paying jobs haven’t gone and taken lower paying labor jobs. I’m not from this country. I lived more years in Israel than I did here and if I could get a job in a tiny town like Oroville, there are jobs out there. If one is disabled, usually they can get help from the government; and if not then they are an exception. But there are a lot of people in America just sitting home and not working because they’re not getting a job in the profession they went to college for. Retrain for crying out loud and if you won’t do that and you’re broke, you’re not poor, you’re lazy.
Not only was Paul not talking about the lazy, who he was talking about was poor Nots’rim. Not just any poor person out on the street. He was talking about Messianics who had lost everything for the cause of the faith. People often write in and ask me, should I continue to give to the poor kids in Africa? I tell them yes, if they’re born again Jews. Otherwise send it to the closest Messianic Rabbi in your area and hopefully he’ll have the sense to send it to Messianics who need it.
[Note: I am skipping verses 11-13, the rebuke of Peter, because while important it is one of the difficult passages which cause people to stumble and fall away. We’ll touch on it some as we pick it up in verse 14.]
Galatians 2:14 (NIV) When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Wait a second- in Christian thinking, Peter was a part of the group in Acts 15 who said the Gentiles don’t have to follow any of the Mosaic Law; that they only have to keep the Noachide laws. So how could he be forcing Gentiles to live like Jews? He said they could live however they want, just so they don’t worship idols and drink blood and so forth. If Peter has changed his mind and is now saying that Gentiles have to keep the Jewish laws, that they have to live like Jews then the ruling they made in Acts 15 needs to be re-voted on because the head apostle, Peter doesn’t see it that way any longer. Rabbi Sha'ul is not the one to decide. He is not in authority over Peter; Paul’s not even one of the 12. If Paul is right and Peter is a hypocrite then Peter needs to step down and be treated like the Pharisees that Yeshua called hypocrites, and the books of 1st and 2nd Peter need to be thrown out of the Bible! And we know those books are canon, so that can’t be right.
And since Paul called Peter a Jew then Peter needs to be converted back to Christianity in order to make it to heaven. "He can’t be a Jew and go to heaven," so where’s that conversion recorded and what do you do with that if you believe in eternal Salvation? What- then Peter wasn’t ever really saved before this entire time? That won’t fare well with the Baptists. By that time, most Christians minds are already swimming because they know something is wrong. Because these verses not only don’t make any sense in a Hebraic understanding they don’t make any sense in a Christian understanding either even AFTER they spiritualize it. If they have enough sense to say "well Paul was saying Peter was a Jew by birth," then you need to have them define what a Jew by faith is. They’ll usually say “a Jew by faith is one that kept the Mosaic Law.” Then you can show them that Jesus kept the Law, and is thus a Jew by faith and not a Christian. Or you can show them that Paul kept the Law and the traditions so he was a Jew by faith. And if Paul was a Jew by faith how can he say that the Gentiles shouldn’t keep the Law and the traditions as he did?
2 Thessalonians 3:6 (ESV) Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
They can’t say those are Christian traditions that he’s talking about. There weren’t any Christian traditions yet. Christianity was brand new in the 2nd century, so he must have been talking about Jewish traditions and how could Paul be telling everyone to keep the Jewish traditions? I thought those were bad. If they say, “no he was talking about Christian traditions” then you ask well which Christian traditions did Paul start?
So what’s the truth then? This whole passage is an interpolation. Peter would not be afraid to eat with Gentiles. In fact, there’s no Jewish prohibition to eat with Gentiles. But I thought he couldn’t eat with Cornelius. What about that? The prohibition wasn’t because of food:
Acts 10:28 (ESV) And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
Another thing we have to know- there was no Jewish law prohibiting a Jew from associating with a Gentile. They had to do that all the time. The Greek scribe who wrote that Peter couldn’t associate with a Gentile didn’t know what he was talking about. Think about this, how could you be a missionary and not deal with Gentiles? Yeshua said:
Matthew 23:15 (ESV) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
He was talking about a particular subsect of the Pharisees when he said that. Not all Pharisees were sons of hell, but none the less how did those Pharisees go over land and sea to get a convert if they couldn't associate or visit them?
So what was Peter talking about? The Law was that they couldn’t go into a Gentiles house if it didn’t meet certain requirements. The Jews of the first century had this down to a science. Jewish law in the order of Nezikin tractate avodah zarah said one could go into the house of a Gentile provided that house didn’t have an idol in it. From that point the schools varied. Some thought you could go into a house that had once had an idol in it but that idol had been removed from the house. Others said that if it ever had an idol in it, it was forbidden to go into the house period.
There was no problem with eating with a gentile. If the gentile was cooking that could be a problem, depending on which school they were from. But they could eat with them and that’s what Peter was talking about with Cornilius. So is there any truth to this argument between Peter and Paul in Galatians?
[Redacted section going back to the rebuke.]
If Peter had said “I’m making new Halacha,” that would have been it. It was Peter’s right as the chief apostle and Rabbi of that sect. We’re not talking about Law here. No one has the right to change G-d’s Laws, we’re talking about fences. Had Peter decided to change the oral codes, Rabbi Shaul would’ve agreed and that would've been the end of that discussion. Peter had the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. Those were Rabbinical legal terms meaning he could set halacha, fences around ; and Rabbi Shaul would’ve had no choice but to capitulate. Paul could've advised Peter about Shammamite law and Peter would’ve appreciated that and listened carefully. Paul was no dummy in this area, but after Peter laid down the halacha, Rabbi Shaul would've then seen it as a finished matter.
…
What they taught us in Bible school is to use particular verses from Galatians to prove the Law is dead. They never encouraged us to go through it with the congregation verse by verse. Just take bits and pieces to prove your point that Judaism is wrong and Christianity is right. And if you listen closely to most Pastors that’s exactly what they do.
Galatians 2:15 (ESV) Justified by Faith We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
I agree with Dr. Shulam when he says this is one of the more “under-interpreted verses in Galatians.” Most commentators don’t know what to make of it. Is it still part of the rebuke that Paul was supposedly issuing to Peter? Is it a new independent thought, or does it belong to the next verses? Let’s look at it with the next verses:
Galatians 2:15-16 (ESV) We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified [counted righteous ] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Commentators don’t think it goes along with that portion either. It seems to be just stuck in there.
Dr. R.N. Longenecker, a well-known New Testament Christian commentator writes in what’s called the World Commentary- a set of @ 60 books with what all the major Bible commentators have to say, book by book. We have to know what the commentators say because they are the ones who dictate what the Pastors out there teach and thus they control what the common Christian believes. He writes:
So he’s pretty much saying, he doesn’t have a clue. But at least he was honest where most of the other commentators just ignore it.
I believe this verse is exactly where it should be “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (goyim= Gentiles or Nations)” simply means, by being Jewish by faith, we have a new nature and we are not sinners like those in the world, or those in the nations. No great mystery if you see being a Jew as something good and translating goyim as nations. But if in your theology Jews are bad and you don’t know how to translate the word goyim you come out with gibberish. “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.” I’m sorry but that statement sounds retarded even in English. We tend to think our translators are educated men and they are; but if they’re blinded this is how many translations end up.
[Redacted a long, important talk on anti-Semitism because it went back to the rebuke. It is difficult to tear the guts out of this teaching, however I must remind myself it is necessary.]
If you’ve been in Church for a number of years, you’ll have some anti-Semitic theology. So it’s imperative to learn to see the anti-Semitic slants in the translations and interpolations. Because if you can’t learn to spot them, some scriptures won’t make any sense to you. “So all the Jews are bad and we have to get rid of them. See, it’s right there, you just have to look!” No it’s not that blatant, it’s just under the radar, but it’s there.
Galatians 2:16 (ESV) yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
So here we continue in truth from vs 15. This falls in line with the rest of Scripture. This has always been true. No person has ever been saved by works. We are saved by faith and by G-d’s grace; nothing we do can ever merit Salvation. This passage isn’t saying anything negative about works, it’s simply stating the truth; works has nothing to do with salvation. After we’re saved, that’s a different story. If you don’t do any works, your faith is dead.
James 2:17 (ESV) So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
What exactly are works? In Greek the word there is “erga” meaning acts, one’s deeds. The Hebrew word for that is “mitzvoth.” So what does that constitute exactly? The word mitzvoth can mean a couple things. It can mean a good deed, or it can also mean G-d’s commandments, laws and statutes. When speaking of G-d’s commandments the word mitzvoth can be separated into positive and negative mitzvoth. A positive mitzvoth would be a command that starts with “Thou shalt” do this or that. A negative mitzvoth would be “Thou shalt not” do this or that. So verse 16 is simply telling us that it’s not all about the mitzvoth, faith has to be incorporated.
So this begs the question, why is Paul writing this? The Jews of the first century knew that Salvation was about faith. They knew Abraham was saved by faith and the grace of G-d. They knew it wasn’t something we could merit. Many don’t know that now, but it was common knowledge back then.
Psalm 143:1-2 (ESV) Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness! Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
Abraham knew it was by G-d’s grace and obviously so did King David here in Psalms. So there must’ve been a reason that Rav Shaul was going on about this. Well there was:
Acts 15:1-5 (ESV) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.[ and sisters] When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
What the church has failed to see here is that this passage is talking about 2 different things. The first part is talking about a few Jews; a new, small sect in Judaism that had just started this new teaching that one could be saved by works. None of the major schools were teaching this. They all knew you could only be saved by faith. The Shamamites knew that, the Hillelites knew that, the Herodians knew that, the Essenes knew that, the Sicarri knew that. Everybody knew that, but this one little obscure sect started teaching something different and they tried it out first on another new sect, the sect of the Nots’rim. They started teaching this new doctrine to some new Gentile Believers in Antioch and Paul said no, this is wrong! Then why does Paul all of a sudden have to go all the way back to Jerusalem to meet with the heads of the Church to discuss this? Paul saw that this new doctrine was going to be the fall of the Jewish people for centuries to come. And he was right. To this day, the Jews as a whole, not all of them, but as a whole believe that works is the way to salvation.
Think about it; how many millions of Jews have perished in their sins because they thought their heart motivation wasn’t a factor. No one doctrine has hurt the Jewish people more than this one and Paul saw it. He had to get back immediately to the leaders of the Messianic Congregation and tell them what he had heard. The second part of this passage talks about when he got there. It’s a separate incident about the Pharisees saying you have to keep the Laws of G-d. It doesn’t say anything about them saying you have to keep them in order to be saved. The very next verse says:
Acts 15:6 (ESV) The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
That’s talking about the second part, NOT the first part. See, there was no question about what the sect in Antioch was teaching. It says very clearly that Paul came into sharp dispute with them, and they were wrong, period. The question in Jerusalem was about if Gentiles had to get circumcised right off the bat and start keeping all of the Laws. Two verses later they say no, keeping all the laws from the very beginning is too much for them. Even our forefathers couldn’t take on all the laws all at once, just have them do it step by step and start with not fornicating or drinking blood and so forth.
That’s what was happening with the second part. But let’s go back to the first part again; Rav Sha’ul hears this new sect saying we can be saved by works. It scares him. He sees the damage that this could do to his people. Rabbi Sha’ul loved his people. He loved the Jews like few have ever since loved the Jewish people. He sees that millions will perish because of this new doctrine and after wrestling with it and seeing in his mind’s eye millions of Jewish souls going to hell he says in another of his writings:
Romans 9:1-4 (ESV) I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.
Rabbi Sha’ul didn’t say this because he knew of Israel’s past, he said it because he now knew of Israel’s future. Before his time Israel had a mix of good times with the L-rd and bad times away in sin. The next 2,000 years though haven’t been too good for our people. More Jews have died in their sins during this 2,000 years than in all the time before. So Paul sees all this, and after he hears this new doctrine he spends the rest of his life fighting it. You see it throughout his letters. He was dedicated to fighting that good fight. To this day it’s our fight. When we evangelize unsaved Jews, we have to battle their belief that they’re OK because they do good works.
It must have torn Rabbi Shaul up to know what damage this new doctrine back then was going to cause even today. That’s a lot of Jewish souls a lot of possible lights to the nations that perished.
Galatians 2:17 (ESV) But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
This is difficult language here. Paul isn’t always easy to read.
2 Peter 3:16 (ESV) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
So now go on to the next verses:
Galatians 2:18-19 (ESV) For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
And you can hear those who are against law, the anti-nomianists, cheer in the background as they quote this over and over again until they are frothing at the mouth striving to prove that they can do whatever they want to because they are free from the Law. It says right there he’s dead to the Law. So how do we deal with this verse? Again, it’s all about context.
Romans 7:12 (ESV) So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
If it’s something holy, righteous and good, why is he dead to it? Yeshua himself said:
Matthew 5:18 (ESV) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Heaven and earth are still here, so the law hasn’t passed. Then how can Paul be dead to it? The way this passage sounds, it sounds like it’s directly contradicting . So that can only mean one of three things: either it’s an interpolation or it’s not supposed to be there, or we’re not understanding it correctly. Mark this; if anything in the New Testament contradicts , those are your three choices.
This time it’s not an interpolation and it’s supposed to be there. We’re simply misunderstanding what it’s saying. Dr. Stern points out in his book, Messianic Judaism; that in the first century they did not have the luxury of having the words legalist, legalistic or legalism. Those words didn’t exist yet. He’s right, we just read about the first time Paul had even heard of this concept. The only word they had to substitute to convey that thought was the word law. That’s the only word that was close. So when they wanted to say legalistic, they said and wrote “law.” But because of the context, they understood what they meant. Very simply, anytime you read something negative about the law, they’re talking about legalism. Of course they’re never talking negatively about G-d’s Law, which would be blasphemy! And every Pastor you hear today talking negatively about G-d’s law is committing blasphemy, whether they’re aware of it or not.
Stern translates it semi correctly but there’s still some problems with it. I’ll show you a proper translation then show you where it differs from Stern’s complete Jewish Bible. The best translation would be “18 Indeed, if I was to build up a legalistic bondage, I really would make myself a transgressor. 19 For it was through letting the speak for itself that I refused its legalistic misinterpretation, so that I might continue to live in direct relationship with God.”
Stern puts vs 18 like this: “Indeed, if I build up again the legalistic bondage which I destroyed, I really do make myself a transgressor.”
The way he puts it here, Stern’s assuming that Paul at some point in his life was legalistic. I’m saying Rav Shaul never was legalistic, ever. The first time he ever heard about legalism he strongly opposed it and ran to the elders of the Nots’rim.
Vs 19 he translates as “For it was through letting the speak for itself that I died to its traditional legalistic misinterpretation, so that I might live in direct relationship with God.” Again, Stern is assuming that Paul was a legalist. He’s saying he died to a legalistic interpretation. Not only do we disagree with that, we also disagree with Stern saying it was something traditional. How could it be traditional, it had just started? Legalism was so new, they didn’t even have a word for it yet. Verses 20 and 21 however he translates correctly:
Galatians 2:20-21 (CJB) When the Messiah was executed on the stake as a criminal, I was too; so that my proud ego no longer lives. But the Messiah lives in me, and the life I now live in my body I live by the same trusting faithfulness that the Son of God had, who loved me and gave himself up for me. I do not reject God’s gracious gift; for if the way in which one attains righteousness is through legalism, then the Messiah’s death was pointless.
Stern is spot on there and it’s a good way to close out the chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Apr 15, 2016 20:04:15 GMT -8
Thank you. A good read and a lot to think about. My eyes are tired  |
|
or Two House believers. They say there’s one set of rules for Messianic Jews and one for believing Gentiles. That passage in Acts that gives a list for the Gentiles is not a maximum list of requirements, it’s a list of minimum requirements; if a Gentile can’t even keep these basic instructions, we can’t even fellowship with them. These are sometimes called the “Noachide Laws” by those ignorant of Judaism. They are wrong, as there are seven Noahide laws, not just four:
